Shouldn't war be only declared after ALL methods of peace have failed?
2007-11-03 15:44:32 · 21 answers · asked by Lindsey G 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sorry...all methods to try to obtain peace, is what I meant.
2007-11-03 15:45:15 · update #1
Yes.
2007-11-03 15:48:38 · answer #1 · answered by Numb 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
War is a terrible thing, I can only hope that the day comes, that there wont be any more wars, but I don't think that will ever happen.
But also, leaders shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the adversary is looking for peace, when he's only preparing to wage war.
i.e:
- Nazis and the soviets: The Nazis made the soviets believe that they wanted to be their allies, even though all signs pointed otherwise. (little know facts, the fuel in the the German fighters in the battle of Britain, the bombs falling on France etc... where made in Russia, also the fighter pilots trained in Russia also.)
- Japan and the USA 1941
- Napoleon in all his campaigns
- Abyssinian campaign (Italy)
- Vietnam War
- Diamond wars
Sometimes the pursuit of peace is a way to buy time to wage war, so a leader should be able to differentiate each one from the other, and not let themselves to be fooled.
But I guess you asked this because the Iraq war and the possible Iran war, and No, the first wasn't necessary, and the second is avoidable.
2007-11-03 16:52:24 · answer #2 · answered by Emilio Z 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, war should be the absolute last resort. We need political leaders that have negotiation skills. Every effort of keeping peace needs to be made before a war is declared.
2007-11-03 16:05:15 · answer #3 · answered by yourmtgbanker 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should definitely be used as a last resort. Every method possible should be used before even thinking about war.
2007-11-03 16:07:24 · answer #4 · answered by Amber 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-11-03 15:50:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
No. war is likewise for use to counter a marvel attack. The marvel attack on Pearl Harbor have been given us into WWII. The marvel attack on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 have been given us into the war on terrorism and Iraq. despite if, i've got self assurance we could desire to constantly no longer use war to unravel different persons's issues. we are no longer the international's policemen.
2016-10-03 07:12:45 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any sensible person would have to agree.
Which might explain why Bush thinks war should be the first resort.
2007-11-03 15:55:44 · answer #7 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes there should always be other methods done first, then war.
2007-11-03 15:49:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I really can think of only two reasons to use military force - when you are being attacked and need to defend yourself and as a means of humanitarian intervention.
But I'm not even sure it is justified under those circumstances.
2007-11-03 15:51:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and if negotiating doesn't work, bomb the enemy back to the dark ages and leave. Don't hang around spending trillions lying about rebuilding when clearly nothing at all has been rebuilt.
2007-11-03 15:47:36 · answer #10 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋