2007-12-23 18:40:48 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
False.
Wars r bad cause they kill. Period.
2007-12-23 18:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Look, not all people join the military due to economic strife. The numbers to support that theory don't exist. I was enlisted for 11 years and served my country due to having been born into a long tradition of military service. As an officers son, I had NO need of the money. As it was, I found many good men along side me were in similar situations. As far as the Darwin theory in war time? Those men and women who have died in service to our country had an element of courage and mental fortitude that many civilians have not tapped. In many cases those killed in combat (In the current war) were done so in accidents or "Dirty" tactics used by their enemy. i.e. IED or Tac explosive by suicide detonation. This neither supports or negates such a theory. I have two sides of the same coin to account for. One: I have met many good men and women who have never joined the Armed forces, but have suffered a death at the hands of others. Two: War kills many good men and women who were brave enough to put their lives on the line. Either way, allot of people are dead for reasons out of their control. Fate as it seems, favors no one. Strong or weak. Rich or poor. Death always has the last laugh.
2007-12-24 03:12:39 · answer #2 · answered by bncorkins 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that wars are bad, but I don't totally agree with that statement. Not all of the "strong" men/women of the world go to war. Not all "strong" men/women who go to war die. Children who will grow up to be "strong" men and women are born everyday, so there will never be an entire population of the weak left to perpetuate the race.
2007-12-24 02:45:48 · answer #3 · answered by maisha 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Define "best".
If "unlucky", or "suicidal" = "best" , then yes it's true .Otherwise......
There are a few cases of altruisim , but probably not enough to matter .
There's a lot of different "best"s required for a civilization/species to continue. Not all involve fighting . A lot of "best"s survive , including some of the best fighters (that's partly why they survived!) . Also what's "best" today , may not be tommorrow . Today's "weakest " might be some future time's "best".
2007-12-24 03:30:45 · answer #4 · answered by mikeinportc 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Niv said if you don't have money you are low class and not fit BOY There was a time I didn't have money that is not a problem today and could buy and sell you a a dozs times As far as fitness I'd love nothing better to show how to be respectful I'd bet the farm I know who you are going too vote for..she well not make...We called your kind 'jody' Old timers well know what I'm calling you
2007-12-24 02:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they're still around to perpetuate the race, how do you figure they're the "weakest"? (Sounds like Hitler saying the Jews were subhuman, yet somehow simultaneously constituted a superhuman threat to the rest of the species.)
2007-12-24 02:48:07 · answer #6 · answered by Omar Cayenne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wars are bad! I cannot agree with the rest of your statement. When Politicians fail in their diplomatic wranglings young people are sent to war in the name of their country and sadly "with God on their side". Man has long taken the name of his/her God in vain as an excuse for their greed and desire to rule the world.
There are a mixture of types in all walks of life including those in military service and it is that tapestry of life which makes for effective fighting units, whatever side, country or religion is fighting. What is bad is terrorism which has no rules of engagement and has no respect for life.
2007-12-24 02:59:55 · answer #7 · answered by stef 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
false
wouldn't it stand to reason that those who enter the most bitter fights and survive are, in fact, stronger for it?
George Washington, Walt Whitman, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, George Marshall, Winston Churchill....are these "weak" men in your estimation...?
2007-12-24 02:58:08 · answer #8 · answered by u_bin_called 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
False...why? Because not every "strong" man that goes to war ends up killed. I never went to war, and I'm to old to enlist now and I ain't weak. My babies are born wearing a red cape and a big S on the front of their one-zees.
2007-12-24 02:46:29 · answer #9 · answered by unclewill67 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There are some very well educated soldiers in the military. Some of you people are sounding like John Kerry.
2007-12-24 02:52:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Survival of the fittest has a lot to do with the biggest, bravest & strongest, and in many ways makes the answer to your question True. However, lately it has a lot to do with money. So, instead of the fittest surviving, the wealthiest are surviving, which kind of puts us on a downward spiral, don't you think?
2007-12-24 02:49:02 · answer #11 · answered by Jay 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋