2007-09-18 14:26:14 · 21 answers · asked by Rambo 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
fighting fire with more fire? stopping violence with more violence? killing people to create peace? well.... i don't think so. think about it is that what they taught you in school at a young age When you got in a fight? no? why should it be any different with war? good question though.
2007-09-18 14:34:48 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ ʇɥbıuoʇ ǝıp sʇǝ1 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the world were full of pascifists asking fundamental questions like this where would we be? We would all be under the control of one person without any individual freedoms!
I do not support any recent wars but if the reason is right, like stopping hitler or fighting against oppression then I fully condone and would gladly sign up for any war.
I am 17 and looking at enlisting but I really don't think I can the way the war is going.
2007-09-18 14:32:33 · answer #2 · answered by Wastedmilkman61 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actual "peace" can not be achieved by war or weapon of mass destruction, those can only Stablize so called "world peace". war would only create hatred that can only be washed away by time (or another war) in my opinion, the final solution to any conflict is violence (given human nature) and "peace" is unattainable due to greed, lust, etc. that humans can never eliminate from themselves. so if by peace you mean stability, then war would be the final solution if others fail.
EDIT hey common, just because u dont like wat im saying doesnt gimme a thumbs down. Disagree with violence? o well. good day to u all
2007-09-18 14:35:42 · answer #3 · answered by Fallen 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes war can achieve peace, I am sure a lot of people will say it can't, but the truth of the matter is that some people need to be "convinced" into what you want them to believe. You can't talk your way out of every situation.
2007-09-18 14:30:55 · answer #4 · answered by godsynthesis 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
War can be defined in many ways. Peace can also be defined in many ways. War does not always mean the presence of physical violence nor is peace always defined as the absence of violence.
In the end, the answer is subjective and always painted with personal perspective.
2007-09-18 14:47:59 · answer #5 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not always, but sometimes. Consider WWII - would Hilter have stopped his atrocities because we asked him politely? Certainly not. It took military action.
And Japan attacked us first. Should we have just accepted that for the sake of peace? Of course we shouldn't have. We needed to defend ourselves.
Is war my first choice? No - diplomacy is. But sadly, some people just can't be negotiated with, and some people are so genuinely evil and violent that violence is the only way to deal with them.
2007-09-18 14:37:54 · answer #6 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
History has taught us war is not the avenue to peace, and wars do not prevent other wars.
2007-09-18 14:33:18 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky H 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The greatest peacemaker of all time is the atomic bomb.
Nothing can keep governments in fear of warfare like something that can completely annihilate a population center and leave it barren and uninhabitable for decades.
If we continue to make steps of escalation in weaponry, soon every weapon will become too terrible to use, and diplomacy will reign between universal mutual fear.
2007-09-18 14:30:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One can never fully achieve true peace through violence.
2007-09-18 14:28:33 · answer #9 · answered by Prosperous Parent 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
world war one was "the war to end all wars." didn't work.
2007-09-18 14:30:36 · answer #10 · answered by soperson 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋