2007-03-07 05:04:17 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
What a motly bunch of idiotic answers you've gotten.
No, war is armed conflict with a military goal. Often times, the object of the assault are the factories and infrastructure that permit the enemy to wage war against you. Civilians are often given as much consideration as possible; we now have weapons so precise they can destroy a building without damaging the one next to it. A main goal of warfare nowadays is to limit civilian casualties to the bare minimum allowed by our imperfect technology.
In ancient times, wars were fought partially to gain captives, which would later be sold as slaves. Obviously, the fewer people they had to kill in order to win the battle, the better. The more life, able-bodied people, the more money they would make.
Who are these simple-minded knuckle draggers who answer these questions so stupidly, so completely without any thought or effort?
2007-03-07 05:13:55 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Killing is killing but some forms are seen as acceptable. War is one of those. The reasons for killing and who does it seems to make a difference. If two men face each other on a battlefield in a war that is okay to kill someone. If those same two men are in a prison and one is a convict and the other an executioner it seems to be okay for one man to kill another. However if the same two men are face-to-face on a street corner and one kills the other that is not okay in our society. Same guys, killing each other but circumstances different.
2007-03-07 05:09:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
in reality a stupid fool criticizes until eventually he has a more suitable positive answer. No u . s . can exist and not using a sufficient military. ok, in case you had finished administration over the country, could you've a "conrtact killing military" or no longer ? if you're saying NO, what could you do even as your neighbor's military marches in ? you imagine the authorities is a mafia racket ? large, hit upon a u . s . that matches you. There could be some. Our u . s . is the more serious contained in the global, except for each and each of the others. human beings by technique of the thousands of thousands in no way stop bashing us in each way that they can imagine of - - - then threat their lives to sneak in. once you're a real American, do not run your u . s . into the airborne dirt and airborne dirt and dirt. in case you imagine some position else is more suitable positive - - - see you later, and reliable luck.
2016-12-05 09:10:46 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost hit it right on the money. War is a euphenism for Kill & Power. Whoever wins the war holds the rights to "brag", and gets the recognition for the most "Powerful Country" in the World.
2007-03-07 05:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by Debs 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have read all the answers you have so far and by there tone recognise that none of them are for serving or ex military people.
Just bear in mind that you have the right to ask that question. Because Soldiers, Seamen and Air force people have died to give you the right of free speech
So are you saying that the gave their lives for nothing.
Some wars are unjustified but a soldier does not have the right to question who he is told to kill.
I assume you are American. What do you think your bill of rights would look like had people not died to preserve YOUR personal freedom.
I think it would be a very short document and would read.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS
John UK ex-soldier
2007-03-07 05:28:28 · answer #5 · answered by Dreamweaver 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Deploying the generals farewell address as his strategic ground zero, Eugene Jareck launches a full frontal autopsy of how the will of the people has become and accessory of the Pentagon. Surveying the scorched landscape of half a centuries military misadventure and misguided missions, Jareck asks how and tells why a nation ostensibly of, and by, and for the people has become a savings and loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.
2007-03-07 05:16:05 · answer #6 · answered by tucksie 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. War is a noun and Kill is a verb.
Check any good dictionary for more information.
2007-03-07 05:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes...
And a good one...
In war, the side that does the most killing is the winner...
2007-03-07 05:07:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why? Have we had wars where people just slung insults at each other and hurt each others fealings? Is there some other type of war?
2007-03-07 06:05:16 · answer #9 · answered by Judge Dredd 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yep There would be no war if people put on the Full Armour of God and not just parts of it.
2007-03-07 06:07:18 · answer #10 · answered by Harry J 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋