2007-08-19 08:05:43 · 21 answers · asked by wickedturnip 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
World War II is the one that seems to be most favorably looked upon by history -- in other words, people believe it was necessary more than any other major war.
So the reasons for that war -- stopping mass genocide and blocking a dictator's aggressive campaign to conquer other nations -- seem like some of the best reasons.
In my opinion, war is generally unjustified.
2007-08-19 08:18:10 · answer #1 · answered by Mike G 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
1st, consider that silly song, "War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing."
Now, consider the 1940s. Would you rather be speaking Japanese and eating white rice as your main course each night, or German, eating wienerschnitzel, or, would you rather defend your own country from invasion?
Good people don't start wars. Bad ones do. Only the stupid people won't defend themselves thinking they are above participating in war. Get used to it. Sh*t happens...wars happen. Either defend yourself (and yes, you may die), or get killed anyway or enslaved.
2007-08-19 10:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wars are only ever fought for political control and/or control of resources. Nobody has ever gone to war to altruistically free an oppressed people or to promote democracy. End of story.
With that said, the only acceptable reason to fight a war is to actually defend the borders of your country from an actual armed invader.
Any other reason is BS
2007-08-19 08:12:05 · answer #3 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I believe you have to have a moral standing to go to war, otherwise it is wasting life for immoral purposes. Saving Iraq from Hussein and preventing the spread of terrorism is a good moral purpose.
2007-08-19 10:16:48 · answer #4 · answered by Make My Day 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War Is A Racket - USMC Major General Smedley Butler - READ IT FREEA short book by US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler on how the US military made war far more for Wall Street and big corporations than anyone's ...
2007-08-19 08:10:43 · answer #5 · answered by Max R Waller 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
it is perfectly fine to fight for economic reasons, but those reasons have to include an enemy who is using force to challenge your own right to economic pursuits....if the nation being denied is not pursuing trade policies that are a form of attack themselves. And it is not alright to invade and occupy a nation because of economic differences,,,you can fight a war and even blow each other to bits (on the high seas), but you can only morally destroy another nation for self defense...usually after protracted fighting and when all other avenues are exhausted.
You also need the whole nation behind you, not just the current ruling party....that's if you want to win
2007-08-19 08:51:17 · answer #6 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The true defense of one's own nation from a specific attacker
2007-08-19 10:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wow!!!
just watched the clip with bill moyer about the secret government!!!
when i was in the service durin vietnamn most of us were figurin out that the war was a bunch of crap,and that we were just expendable pawns in the political game goin on!!!
very informative stuff!!!
whats gets me is that if a bushead is confronted with hard fact evedence they blow a fuse and there braincells scramble!!!
talk about denial, grow up and smell the gunpowder, oil and blood!!!
2007-08-19 08:39:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's called "self defense".
Self defense is something smart people do to keep bad guys from murdering everyone in their country, and then taking over to commit atrocities, like saddam.
2007-08-19 10:25:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sending people to die in any war is horribly primitive and ignorant.
True leaders should solve their differences by themselves and not massacre anyone else.
2007-08-19 09:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋