There is no need for people to die at the hands of other people in this day and age.If you can't understand why just look around...Tom Science 4
2007-03-02 02:35:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Under some circumstances, war is the only option available. For instance, in December of 1941 after the United States was bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, the only option available to us was war. War should always be our last possible option (Plan Z) in any situation, but it should never be taken off the table.
I would agree that there should be no need for people to die at the hands of other people, however, you need to convince the Islamic extremists that this is the case. You need to convince them that more can be gained through their life than their death. That is the enemy we face today, one who achieves more in death than in life, one who would rather die for his cause than negotiate for his life. To deal with this type of enemy there is only one option, war.
2007-03-02 02:42:53 · answer #1 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"There is no need for people to die at the hands of other people in this day and age."
Are you suggesting no one's murdered in this or any other country? Only nations murder through war? WISHING it wasn't so will not change human nature. You can believe what you want, but if someone's going to die....I'd rather it be the other guy. Walking around unarmed and oblivious doesn't decrease the odds of it being you.
2007-03-02 02:52:42 · answer #2 · answered by Michael E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why does the left feel it is okay for US Citizens to constantly be attacked and killed, Embassy bombings, 9/11 etc.
Why does the left call for action for feel good causes, Darfur, but turn their back when the withdraw and Millions are killed, Vietnam,Somalia and possible Iraq.
Why does the left ignore the average of 20,000 Iraqis a year were killed by Saddam for over 30 years.
Why can't they understand that posturing for political purpose can kill more than they say they can save.
2007-03-02 02:57:28 · answer #3 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that most realistic people know that war is a necessary evil.there is a misconception among some people, who believe in the inherent goodness within all humans. this is utter fantasy. the fact is, there is an inherent evil within all humans-only the most civilized cultures are able to repress this characteristic-the least civilized cultures use religion,blood ties,tribal factions, etc.,as a platform from which to use terror/genocide as a means to further their agendas,and as justifications for their failed societies/cultures.
2007-03-02 03:02:09 · answer #4 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some things have to be defended, like freedom for instance. I am sure that many people in countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia wish their ancestors had fought a little harder when the communists were trying to overthrow their governments. Let me ask you: What values or things are you willing to fight to defend today? Or are you willing to roll over for people who are willing to kill you just because you do not share their crazy views?
2007-03-02 05:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately war is sometimes necessary. Islam extremists have been targeting us for decades without fear of reprisals from the west, that's what inaction has got us. It only emboldened the enemy. The only way to stop the Islamic Extremists is to kill them.
2007-03-02 02:43:46 · answer #6 · answered by The Man from Nowhere 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nobody likes war but it is sometimes necessary.
What would you do if someone were to harm you and your family? Would you lay down like a dog or stand and fight for them?
It is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. Republicans will never hug terrorists. WE prefer to fight them.
2007-03-02 02:54:08 · answer #7 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pacifism is at best naive. War is sometimes necessary. "There's a time for war & a time for peace"- Eccliastes. The hard part is figuring out which time is for which.
2007-03-02 02:40:36 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
They give support for the war but they dont mean it since they never join the military and go and fight the war.
2007-03-02 02:49:45 · answer #9 · answered by Stefan 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The reality of history is that war is the default condition not peace. Apparently "Repulicans" are a bit more realisitic than you are.
2007-03-02 02:41:06 · answer #10 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋