There are always alternatives to war if political leaders have the spine to take the long and difficult route of diplomacy. The problem is, when they're looking out for short term gains i.e. the next election, mid-term etc, they don't want to commit to something that might not pay off for a couple of years, even if in the long term it results in a much more stable and lasting peace.
2007-02-19 05:58:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Cardinal Fang 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's hard to judge your argument on such old history. The reasons for the Spanish American war have become too blurry over time. As far as the American side on that issue, America had a lot to gain in that war. The Spanish had a lot to lose. Spain's only alternative was to give up its possessions without a struggle.
Wars today have differing motives than during the 19th century. An example would be the Cuban missile crisis. The US postured for war over the removal of the missiles for security reasons. The USSR backed down because a war wasn't worth a few missile bases in Cuba.
2007-02-19 06:03:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, they were alternatives for war, but in that case war turned out very favorably for the United States and all of the Spanish possesions. I don't think he had much of an alternative to war, the public would have crucified him for not going to war, unless he could have proved that thee Spanish did not blow up the Maine.
2007-02-19 05:54:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by asmith1022_2006 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
certainty. do away with the secret centers, insist that the click is straightforward, and all wars will end. Wars a created by ability of roughly 0.5 a dozen human beings, who by no ability truthfully combat. they are the heads of governments and their close pals who use the folk as pawns. If each and all of the folk have been enabled to take heed to and spot the reality, then there would by no ability be the slightest help for any conflict, and those suggesting it may be placed in a health facility the place they belong
2016-11-23 18:54:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are only alternatives for the aggressor. The defending nation is limited to fighting back or ceasing to exist.
The best defense is a good offense.
2007-02-19 06:01:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Michael E 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The best alternative to war is, the leader that is pro-war should be there with the army's. It looks very different from the front. This will cure the "bring'm on" stupid talk.
2007-02-19 06:06:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by edubya 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Some alternatives aren't nearly as good as warfare
Like appeasment for example.
2007-02-19 05:56:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
War is always wonderful for the ones who aren't doing the warrin'.
2007-02-19 05:58:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
its called P E A C E
wake up repukes
2007-02-19 05:55:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by WMD LIEr W 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nope.
2007-02-19 05:52:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gottlos 4
·
1⤊
1⤋