How is it possible to have a war against violence?

Question

You could use the metaphor of a bank robber (terrorists) holding a gun to the teller, but the police (us) have a gun aimed at the robber. But isn't war more complicated than that? Its as if the robber has buddies with guns aimed at the cop, and then the cops have guns aimed at the other guys. If any one of them shoot, they will all die.

I read an editorial about how the terrorists "can't be reasoned with, that their way is the only way." ...Didn't we sort of do that with Saddam and Iraq? Sure, it was bad, but who are we to say that another country is being run the wrong way and invade them?

When someone says that the terrorists are trying to take away our freedom, its not the terrorists doing it. Its our own government and the patriot act.

That's just my point of view. What's yours and why?

Answer 1

Who are we to say what is right and wrong?

The same could be said of Hitler. Who were we to stand and help remove him from power? This was just on a smaller scale.

I do not believe that strapping a bomb to a child, man, woman, or myself, for the sake of striking fear and terror in the hearts and minds of people is right. We do not go around deliberately killing men, women, children with no remorse. With the plan to go out and do it all again the next day. Terrorism, itself is what we are against. Not the people of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or where ever they may be from in the area. The act of terrorism itself is what is wrong. No where should it be acceptable. You actually think that terrorists don't take away freedom? The Patriot act has not effected my freedom...

"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.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of men better than himself"
John Stuart Mill

At least, then, he has the option to better himself, defend himself, and stand up for what is right, shoulder to shoulder with others now capable of doing so.

Answer 2

Well, first off, we liberals like to say that the "war on terrorism" doesn't makes sense because you can't make a war on a method. So just change the phrase so we can't quibble about it to "war on terrorists". Then we can debate the method of fighting terrorists.

The war on terrorists should be fought with law enforcement, not with the military. It's a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Whenever we hear a report of a terrorist attempt, it is always foiled by the law enforcement agencies rather than the military. So I don't think the U.S. should ever have invaded Iraq to fight terrorists. Besides, most of the fighting in Iraq is between sectarian groups that use terrorist methods that are not necessarily the same people who want to use terrorists tactics against another country. The best thing I think we could do for Iraq is to partition the country into a loose confederation of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd areas and then get out.

Answer 3

I like how the reps/cons try to blame Clinton somehow for the Iraq war...Boy they are really reaching to try and point blame somewhere other than where it really is... Clinton I'm sure would have loved nothing more than to take out Saddam, but all the intelligence and advisers were saying that if you take Saddam out of power, then you are going to create such an unstable environment, that you will never be able to control it. Bush got the same information as well, just he's the "War president" and doesn't want to listen to facts and being the "decider", he led us into something we will not be able to heal from for many many many years to come. It would have been nice to have a back up plan huh Bushy.....

Answer 4

In a way, I sorta agree. What we did in the country of Iraq was out of the line. We should have not mess with them because our real target is Bin Laden or whoever did the 911.

But I don't agree when you said that, who are we to say that another country is being run the wrong way. America is a powerful and a flourishing country. We have a big impact in the world economy.

I'll give you an example when that statement is wrong...
If you are America and you see a country, where it's government is killing it's own people, where country decide what your future will be, where they treat them like ****, or whatever. You as a powerful country have the power to stop all this and help those in need and that is where you step in and take action. (i read an article about some country in africa, where they kill their people in stuff,i dont remember, it was a long time ago) I mean that's another example where you need to step in and take actions.

Were like batman (LOL), when we see someone in trouble we rescue them but batman is a vigilante, he takes justice in his own hands like what we do. Which i think is a mistake.

Answer 5

Because you are reducing the violence by at first only containing it to waging war against it. Once all other aspects of violence are eliminated then the last remaining one (the war on violence) dissolves away with them.

Yeah, it sounds like an oxymoron but its not.

And a good reason to intrude upon another country is if their policies in handling their citizens are such that they will one day intrude upon us. It's called preventative measures, and is used to prevent something worse from occurring at a later date should events be left unchecked. The way they handle their citizens, and in turn their country, wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't oppressive to a large degree.

Answer 6

Ever hear of the "Cold War"?
The situation in your example exactly describes the Cold War. It worked. It was costly, long and very worrisome, but other wars that occurred during that era were limited in scope.
When the end of the cold war was announced I said: "Now the world is safe for war again". I think I have been proven correct.
The difference with the evils of TODAY'S world is, the enemy WANTS to die and take everyone with them in the process.
THAT is the difficult part. A cold war scenario cannot work with people who desire Armageddon.
That puts us in a position where we either render them incapable of fighting or kill them for the sake of a humanity who desire a life free from terror.

Answer 7

Our government did the attacks at 9/11. The real war on terror is a lie and excuse for bush to shovel all the taxmoney to his buddies.

Answer 8

Other countries/leaders are picking the fight. It's really that simple.

If your neighbor was beating his wife would it be wrong of you to call the cops because they would detain him against his will? Does that make you and the police as bad as the wife-beater?

Come on...

.

Answer 9

Why don't people like you go to middle east and reason with the terrorists?

Answer 10

Yea, its kinda dumb-- like when a group protests war and violence breaks out at their 'peace demonstration'!