English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Does death and destruction solve anything or rather fuel the sadistic cycle???

2007-05-31 21:21:00 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

17 answers

Death and destruction has solved things in the past. Ignore the discussions about Iraq. Look at World War II. Then, there was no hope for peace. War was the only way to proceed. Hitler would not have listened nor cared about peaceful protest. Yes, the root causes were based of the previous war, so you could argue that the second world war was part of the cycle of violence, but since then, there has been no major war in Europe. Nations that once warred against each other now live in peace side by side. So there, war did bring about peace.

There are examples where not fighting a war made things worse, this being in Rwanda (one million dead while we in the west stood by) and Bosnina (women and children raped and murdered again, while we stood by).

And there are more recent examples of where fighting a war has helped save lives, this being in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. Not fighting a war would have resulted in proloned suffering there.

So to answer your question, most of the time it fuels a sadistic cycle, but it can solve things.

2007-05-31 23:51:13 · answer #1 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 1 0

Sometimes bombing is the only way to bring about change!. The 2nd world war is an good example of when war and killing could be justified. The evils of the Nazi state needed to be vanquished otherwise the world would have sunk into another dark age!.

Presently there are disputes / wars which really are petty and should not be going on!. Iraq Afghanistan and the conflict between Israel are examples of these which amount to stupidity's beyond belief!.

2007-06-01 12:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by robert x 7 · 0 0

'The sadistic cycle' - sounds like a bike with a nail sticking up out of the saddle.

Some people can only be dealt with by wiping them off the face of the earth. they are not rational, they do not believe in compromise. I think we can all identify some people (leaders) like that.
Of course, the hope is that we can wipe out the fundamentalist leaders and leave people who are willing to come to compromise situation.
With modern guided weapons like the paveway smart bomb, it is possible to target particular places and (with good intelligence) particular people.
therefore it is not an oxymoron to talk about 'bombing for peace'

2007-06-01 04:35:02 · answer #3 · answered by SeabourneFerriesLtd 7 · 2 0

If you don't bomb then thugs like Saddam, Hitler, Osama and so on, get stronger and beat down the people into serving them out of fear, then they come and bomb you. By us going on the offensive and bombing them and removing the dictators, we give the people that were beaten down a chance to have freedom as we know it. I think the people of Iraq have been oppressed for so long that they don't understand what we are trying to do for them but once they do, they will blossom into a great country. So if you want to wait for some thug to come take away your liberties, you have that right. At least for now.

2007-06-01 09:43:19 · answer #4 · answered by spinner 2 · 1 0

That's the truest thing i`ve read on here in a long time .What person wouldn`t hate and detest the ones responsible for dropping bombs on them and murdering their friends and family .Its human nature that it would make them want revenge The only real peace can come from respect and justice ,and i suspect anyone saying different .come from the side who are dropping the bombs and not the ones on the receiving end

2007-06-01 04:44:02 · answer #5 · answered by keny 6 · 2 1

Depends, World war 2 prevented Europe from being taken over by a tyrannical madman.
The threat of nuclear annihilation, prevented that annihilation during the cold war.

yes, people have died, but it was for the greater good.

2007-06-01 05:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by badshotcop 3 · 1 0

Inactivity doesn't result in peace, either. Whatever peace can exist has to be enforced, it doesn't just "come" by doing nothing, or by wishing for it. There will always be those who don't want peace unless it's under their tryranical rule (which isn't peace, either).

2007-06-01 04:28:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

"I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler, in which he assures us that there will be no war in Europe."
"With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution."

Neville Chamberlain - 1938

2007-06-01 07:39:19 · answer #8 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 2 0

ONly if you bomb the moronic jihadis making life miserable for anyone moderate.
Remember the jihadis are just as bad, if not worse than the evil they seek to replace.

2007-06-01 05:08:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Only in a completely nieve mind would someone assume that nobody would use force to undermine everything dear to you. I realize that a person that would say such a thing as your "question" has no concept of the real world. There are people in the world that will kill you for being you. THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM IS TO KILL THEM.

2007-06-01 04:27:06 · answer #10 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers