this is for those who oppose war...?

Question

if war is such a bad sollution for solving problems then what would you propose for an alternative to war?

Answer 1

Harrison, they don't have any. They will say peace, or some sort of appeasement. They will cluelessly misunderstand your question which is when appeasement, diplomacy, and peace fail miserably and you have to resort to conflict, what is your preferrence if war is not an option.

Answer 2

It depends on the war.

For instance, by the time we entered World War II,
the US HAD to enter the war. Indeed, if you assume
that Chamberlain really did give peace a good
try, then that war seems pretty much inevitable
after World War I.

If we hadn't, there is no reason to believe that Hitler's
machine wouldn't have kept on coming to the
Western hemisphere.

On the other hand, the current war was not well
thought out and nobody really has a clear definition
of victory. Under such circumstances, not only
is war unwarranted, it is actively making the
situation worse.

If I saw a clear definition of victory, and I saw
adequate resources put towards that goal, I might
support it.

However, the current administration has failed
completely on both counts.

Answer 3

War is necessary. We have been fighting since we have existed. It is an innate hunger that is inevitable.

There are some things that we (as humans) feel so strongly about that we'd never give up without a fight. War comes in when one nation does not want to give up something to another.

The war in Iraq is the same; it's just that the US is trying to help the Iraqis achieve democracy so that compromise can be reached and peace sustained.

Answer 4

War comes in when diplomacy fails it is an eventuality and sometimes a necessary. Those who say peace is the alternative are just being naive, sure everyone would enjoy a peaceful coexistence with everyone else, but we all know that is a pipe dream that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Answer 5

Oh you mean war in general. I thought you meant the war we are in at the moment.

War is sometimes what you have to do. An easy example would be Nazi Germany and Hitler. There was no way to negotiate with him.

The Iraq war we are in right now though could have easily been avoided.

So to answer the question, War is sometimes the answer, but definitely not all the time.

Answer 6

Think about Gandhi.

He pushed one of the most powerful armies of the world at that time out of India, without a battle.

Now think about the ongoing violence, let's say in Palestine. People blow up civilians and show off with their Kalashnikovs - since decades. They don't learn. If the would act peacefully they would have their own country.

Think about a filthy iranian president. Going to war with him is nonsense, and it will blow up the whole middle east. But his country relies totally on money from oil exports. So, let's start saving oil and gas. If his economy goes down and if there are sanctions he will not succeed.

Peace is not the goal. It is the method.

Answer 7

a total lack of interest in the governments bullshit...bring war back to the individual levels and allow for the culling of populations...arm every human, and every one who survives will learn to be civil to one another...the best way to deal with jihadis is to take one out yourself...(the problem here is who is a jihadi?, how can one determine the profile of the wahabist, jihadist warrior?)...this answer is basically a rambling incoherent way to get in print...

Answer 8

It's the same people that are opposed to eating beef while wearing leather shoes. Full of sh!t, that's all.

Answer 9

Diplomacy, sanctions, trade pressures, embargoes...

Much of the opposition to war isn't just because it's war. It's because this is offensive war, not defensive.

Answer 10

WE live in an international community in which we are all heavily rely upon each other for economic growth, trade and in some cases aid.

Well, you can effectively damage a country by turning all that off.
Worked with N. Korea.