Peace through superior firepower
Kill em’ all and let God sort em’ out
No really.
You and I both obviously acknowledge the fact that there have always been and will always be evil people. From the common street level thug to nutcase fundamental Shiites in Iran who want to bring back the 12th imam and reestablish the caliphate i.e. Eurabia.
We as one of the most free (for now) and civilized nations are obligated to stop them.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
2007-08-29 12:22:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
It depends on what the "question" is. Was waging war the answer for America in Iraq? No, especially since the excuse used (Weapons of Mass Destruction) proved groundless. Is America or the world any safer from terrorists as a result of our invasion of Iraq? No; in fact we're weaker financially and militarily due to our invasion (which was unjustified to begin with) and we're more of a target now than before, and the terrorists have killed more Iraqis (and Americans fighting there) than Saddam Hussein ever did. No, surrender, submission, slavery and self-destruction are not the answers either, but then, we weren't being threatened with any of those in Iraq, were we?
2007-08-29 19:20:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, it depends upon the question.
If the question is, should we invade sovereign nations who are not harming us, against the will of the world, in order to steal their resources, destroy their infrastructure, torture their people, mass murder and maim their children, and use the war as a front for massive draining of the US treasury and evisceration of the US constitution, then the answer would be to just say no.
When someone has invaded us and is trying to enslave us, then we fight.
It's really very very simple, if you are not brainwashed, don't love killing, and know a little american history, so that you are aware of how many times we have toppled democratically elected govts in the middle east (iran 1953, for example, installing the shah), and south/central america nicaragua, guatemala under Reagan to name only two of literally dozens of times)and how many times we prop up violent, brutal, repressive govts in those areas (installed Saddam, for example, support our good friends (15 of 19 hijackers) the Saudis, Bush paid $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001, billions to the mass murderers of the Palestinians and on and on ....)
2007-08-29 23:10:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by cranberrychutney 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
War is the FINAL answer. War is the answer after all other options have been exhausted.
This is why you dont strike pre-emptively. In fact, consider how soon nuclear war might have occurred if you had W in office during the cold war, seeing as he prefers to put diplomacy on the back burner.
2007-08-29 19:21:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Harry Bastid 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The phrase 'War is not the answer" is by no means general. Sometimes war can be justified, but those situations are quite rare. 99% of the world's conflicts could've easily been solved through diplomacy. To declare war is simply immature.
2007-08-29 19:18:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dan L 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
The answer is compromise and sacrifice. That's not what people will choose, though. They'll fight it out and kill their people before they'll kill their pride, sorry to say.
Don't blame the president. I am sick of people trying to put all the blame of this selfish country on the president. He is only doing what they are making him do - protect their resources so they can live exorbitantly. Look in the mirror next time you want to point a finger at someone for making soldiers die.
2007-08-29 19:13:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
"It is imperically incorrect to say that one cannot achieve peace through violence. Indeed, without violence, one could never subdue or eliminate those who use violence against the peaceful." - Brooks Mick
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mill
2007-08-29 19:12:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Voice of Liberty 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oh sure, the minute we pull out of Iraq the Talibanian Navy will be steaming up the Patomac. Al Quieda will take ove the WALMART and make your women wear Burkas.
Have you any idea how stupid that sounds.
2007-08-29 19:27:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I pick secret option four, none of the above. In a perfect world there is no conflict. Pffft, I have a feeling that's never gonna happen though. Oh well, gotta keep hope, right?
2007-08-29 19:13:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
War is not always the answer.
And war is not the answer when it doesn't solve the problem.
Sometimes, any of those could be the answer -- as with most things, it entirely depends on the facts and the circumstances.
Example, you (an adult) are surrounded by a group of 4 year olds who demand you surrender the cookies to them -- is war the answer then?
2007-08-29 19:10:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
6⤊
3⤋