Anti-war people: Would you acknowledge that violence is sometimes necessary?

Question

Is it necessary to defend yourself from a man who is attacking you?

I'm not "pro-war" in the sense that I enjoy it because I don't, but I do see it as a necessary evil.

Answer 1

maybe for a day or two.. not for years.

Answer 2

Violence has been traditional, and perhaps sometimes it seems necessary. But that doesn't make it necessarily or inevitably so.

Let's take a famous example. Hitler. OK, there was a crazy dictatorship, and it took hold of Europe during the years of the great depression. The role this global depression had in causing Hitler's rise to power is underestimated. In the long run it was indeed necessary to meet Hitler's aggression with force, but I would suggest that if the major banks hadn't willingly plunged the world into that depression, and if people had really payed attention to Hitler's rise on both sides of the Atlantic, there's a chance his reign of terror could have been prevented by simply making sure that the German people weren't so desperate they'd embrace such a zealot.

The powerful in America during the 30's new Hitler was up to some nastiness. Hundreds of death camps could not have been operating in complete secret, and powerful people here were aware. If they had exercised conscience instead of hedging their bets with Hitler (Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, Prescott Bush all fit this description), they might have created enough international pressure to unite more effectively against the third reich. But in the end, violence was the only solution left because, simply speaking, we didn't try any other...

In the current world order, if so many people in the middle east weren't oppressed by their Sheiks and Emirs on the one hand, and collusive deals between those leaders and oil companies, and if those Saudis shared there wealth by educating their children in something other than Jihad, then the whole terrorist movement would lose traction.

But of course this offends some Americans because they don't really want to believe our political and business leaders have played a role in creating the unrest... look how Rudy shouted down Ron Paul.

People do terrible hings out of desperation. Much of the desperation exists because the rich love to keep others down, flaunt their wealth and suppress other's chances of living even decently. This exists in all societies.

A more equitable world would be a world that didn't feed violent rebellion.

---I see you disagree. I guess I'll have to beat some sense into you!!!!! (/;?)

Answer 3

I'm not a completely anti-war person, but, religiously speaking, yes, sometimes violence is necessary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that people are allowed to wage war if it's for a good reason.

Answer 4

Violence is necessary because there will always be someone else who sees it as necessary. You can talk and packpedal all you want, but when your life your family's lives are on the line, you'll change your tune.

Answer 5

I absolutely agree it is necessary. However, it should be used carefully. Men are not rocks to throw en masse at death. Other people's lives should be treated with care.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.
--Tao Te Ching

Answer 6

Violence is always necessary. Here's a blank check. Knock yourself out.

Answer 7

Absolutely. There are many times when violence is the only suitable way to protect yourself. Personally, I object to the senseless murder of innocent civilians as a method of achieving arbitrary foreign policy goals.

Answer 8

Yes, violence is sometimes necessary. Like in Afghanistan. Sometimes it's just stupid. Like in Iraq.

Answer 9

People who try to claim that violence is never necessary... these people are living in a fantasy world and are actually endangering the people who may have to fight to protect them. Living in denial of reality does not and will never bring about peace on earth.

Answer 10

No. I can't see any time where violence would be necessary. There's a difference between violence and self-defense.

Answer 11

If you take it to a microcosm of an example...

Suppose there is one source of food, that cannot be shared.

And there are two people there. One of them gets to eat, the other one starves.

Violence is inevitable.

That's the way the world works, just on a larger scale. However, there is more than one food source on this planet, and if certain groups would not be so greedy, there would probably be enough to go around. (And not just food, affluence of all kinds)