Why does America believe in War to solve problems?

Question

You are A non human Ronald r, I am alot more smarter than you are kinder. War is never a solution and should never be created.

Because there are so many war believers, there never will exist Peace in America and on this planet. Hitler imprisoned humans for 6 years and no american believed this mass murder,was occuring and no rescue made until 1945 alongside England and Russia, in bosnia as well death with no relief, vietnam's mistake that is the U.S.A. Iraq, Iran ect...Nothing but murder for oil, money and power. Now is this Canadian stupid or are you?

It is no wonder that America is so disliked in the world, when my question was asked to prove a point. Americans are very ignorant and want to put the blame on everyone else but themselves, to be selfish and stupid is one thing but to create world chaos is another, shame on the heartless people who call themselves free. I am a 44 year old woman who has seen life and history created by my neighbours America. Let me tell you this, we do not need your home made bombs or going into countries you have no citizenship in and deciding what will be done there. 9/11 happened because you supplied weapons to Sadam and many other leaders who you now have decided are the enemy, talk about hypocrisy. Now take that you pro War and will die in it but do not take any more casualties with you to your created hell Clear for you all!

Answer 1

It is the conservative Christian influence that has infected America's politics and public life. They are a hateful, ignorant, and violence-prone group who worship a brutally judgmental and humanity-hating Old Testament god. Their mission is to bring misery and suffering to every person on earth.
-----------------------------

hey ronald r --

It is not Canada that has lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is losing the war on terror. I would not be so indignant when it is clear to all that Bush’s policy is not only illegal and immoral, but also stupid and a failure as well.

-------------------------------

Alias Smith & Jones --

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are stronger in Afghanistan now that they were before Bush invaded. How do you call that a success?

And, Clinton fixed Bosnia overl, and in spite of, constant Republican opposition.

Answer 2

I think the postings here to your question largely answer your question. It isn't whether Cain personally believes one way or the other. It is because a substantial part of our society has lost the understanding of how a democracy works and what functions a government is responsible for. Government is not there to be a profitable corporation. Government is there to serve the people. the Government collects taxes to pay for and maintain the capability of serving the people it was elected by. Our modern society demands a functioning infrastructure in order to maintain a certain standard of living which is demanded by it's people. This infrastructure includes (but isn't limited to) the following: - Transport infrastructure (roads, railway systems, airports, bridges and maintenance of those) - Communication infrastructure - Pandemic prevention - Disaster relief - Judicial system - Police - Fire departments - Military - Technology research - Education - Protect citizens health etc.. Obviously a lot of these topics will not be "profitable" but they serve basic needs of our society in order to stay free and maintain a civilized lifestyle. The Herman Cains in politics have always had the idea, that government has to work "efficiently" as seen only from a profit/loss perspective in terms of finance. The profit/loss perspective of a democratically elected government has to focus more on social abilities and skills. An example: - Paying for education for our kids today along standards that count for every child everywhere in the USA will make our country smarter in 20 years from now. That leads to a better position of our country compared to other countries we are competing with. So here's already a huge loss programmed when seen from a strict bottom line perspective in financial terms. Of course there are lots of other topics where an open discourse amongst all citizens would help come to conclusions. For example the health care debate: How can we be free citizens, if we cannot afford to stay healthy? Shouldn't health equality in our society be a basic building block of our "civil liberties"? or should the liberty of being healthy only apply to those that can afford it? During the entire yelling competition about our health care, I did not hear any substantial discussion about this question. I am sure, since health care isn't a profitable industry, when we look at the health of our people (we all get sick at some point), Cain would not have it. Of course, he is healthy today because he could afford to be. Others who didn't have his kind of money were not so lucky. Where should our solidarity and friendship with our fellow citizens begin and where should it end? I don't think that just looking at the bare bones constitution will give us answers. I think we need to define those answers for ourselves and our fellow citizens. A democratically elected government should always keep those in mind, who are of different opinion. Herman Cain is a business man. He has always been a business man. In his world everything can be resolved using a business calculator, a pencil and a few sheets of clean white paper. The ultimate simplification and reduction of the complex.

Answer 3

War has always been a solution. Where do you get such ideas. Ask the city council of Carthage. Rome settled their problems with war. The Japanese aggression all over the Pacific. Settled by war. Hitler, settled by war. Raw, naked violence has settled more issues then all the talking and do gooders in the history of mankind. I do not care for it either, but facts are facts. Chairman Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Abbie Hoffman never fixed anything, neither did John, Paul, George or Ringo.

Answer 4

Hey don't look at the US as having a monopoly on war. Most nations have engaged in war in one way or another in their history. This is something all societies have in common.

That said, many Americans don't believe in war as being the first appropriate response, so you cannot generalize. This is what ousted many of the war loving and profiteering conservatives from public office last election. I personally take a more cynical stance in believing that the reasons for war is rarely what the public is told it's for. Almost always it is for economic reasons and pushing national interests, not for altruistic reasons. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Answer 5

Worked against Hitler. Kept Bosnians from being slaughtered. Removed the Taliban from Afghanistan (and we're going to need to continue fighting there soon if we don't pay attention).

Sometimes you need to fight.

[ADDED] Your added details indicate that you are on a high horse and did not really ask your question in the spirit of inquiry. Your retort against my Bosnia remark is nonsensical. Your contention that the US was late to the game in fighting Hitler is irrelevant to your question. Worse still is your ad homonym broadside against a monolithic movement in American history - not only is your characterization incorrect, but also it's incendiary and counterproductive to your purported interest in the matter.

When you come down off your lofty perch, maybe there will be a basis for discussion. To hasten that day, you should pick up a book on logic, rhetoric, and syllogisms.

Answer 6

Because sometimes it works. Dictators are thrown out, peoples are liberated, acts of genocide and human rights abuse are sometimes averted. The NATO action in Kosovo is a case in point.

But it only works if you're smart. You have to pick your fights carefully, wage war seriously (and proportionately), and know when you're beaten. Thomas Aquinas knew all this 800 years ago - there is such a thing as a 'just war'. But it's pretty rare. And the people in charge at the moment aren't smart enough to work out any of this. They really are very, very dim. I can't stress this enough.

Answer 7

Because war does solve some problems. Without war we would still be faced with slavery, Nazism, genocide, colonialism, terrorism, imperialism and too many other tragedies to list.

Would you ask a a Black Man or a Jew to resubmit themselves to slavery and mass murder because you are too naive to admit that there are people in the world with evil intentions that only force will stop.

You are lucky you live in a country that also has a tendency to use force to protect itself. I do not know how much longer it will be able to with the influx of cowards who did not exist in WW II.

Answer 8

Canada is at war too ... NATO is fighting in Afghanistan and the Canadian Armed Forces are in the most dangerous area of that country. So why does Canada and NATO believe in war to solve that problem?

Probably because sometimes it is the only way to free a people from being governed by bullies (dictator or extremists), to protect the people from the bullies, and to try to help a people to get to the position where they are able to help themselves democratically.

And to protect their own from terriorism!

Answer 9

It was a country founded in a war. War has always been a mainstay in the United States. War has brought the United States glory...especially in World War II.

Answer 10

is not a believe...Is a choice that went a take because of all the murderes called terrorist all over the world...If the US don't do nothing then we will have to live in fear here and all ver the world with all rhat terrorist loose all over the US and do what they did in 9/11 Have you forgot that? It wasn't enought for you that... If the never come here to do what they did it won't be any war....Doesn't that make sense to you?

Answer 11

Most Americans don't believe War solves problems, but if you don't survive an attack on your life, everything else is moot. We we attacked on 9/11, a response is required. What response is for our politicians to decide.