Is War the answer to providing World Peace ?

[Daryn]

this is not at all my opinion or statement.   this is wut my grade 10 socials teacher told us..


war is a good way to jump start a countries economy.  he then went on to say that germany was the first country in europe to get out of a depression (by starting the war machine).    

i have not really looked into it, but if someone can tell me if that is true (germany gettin gout of depression first), that would be great..

[PirateJohn]

this is not at all my opinion or statement.   this is wut my grade 10 socials teacher told us..


war is a good way to jump start a countries economy.  he then went on to say that germany was the first country in europe to get out of a depression (by starting the war machine).

Ever see the movie The Mouse That Roared?

[kensington25]

Hi there, I think it all depends on the individual circumstances and each case should be taken on its merits but yes I do think very occasionally war can be justified. Just a small point though. For the majority of countries that fought in World War Two it started in 1939. The Americans joined in 1941. Best wishes William

[Noodie]

A very sensitive topic...

Of course war is sometimes necessary. I don\'t think anyone would say that the allies were wrong to fight against Germany and Japan in WW2.

I question the motivation behind most of the more recent campaigns. I\'m sure most people do. I think that if the west was truly concerned with fighting tyrany and removing dangerous regimes then we would be fighting a war in North Korea at the moment...

It seems to me that the nature of war has changed now though. Our enemies walk amongst us and we rarely know who they are, until it\'s too late.

[PirateJohn]

Hi there, I think it all depends on the individual circumstances and each case should be taken on its merits but yes I do think very occasionally war can be justified. Just a small point though. For the majority of countries that fought in World War Two it started in 1939. The Americans joined in 1941. Best wishes William

Yes, thank you.  I had intended to ask whether it was justified for the US to declare war on Germany in 1941, but I see I hadn\'t quite made that clear.  The difference between the US and the rest of the Allied countries is that the US was not in imminent danger of being attacked.

[Wolf]

this is not at all my opinion or statement.   this is wut my grade 10 socials teacher told us..


war is a good way to jump start a countries economy.  he then went on to say that germany was the first country in europe to get out of a depression (by starting the war machine).    

i have not really looked into it, but if someone can tell me if that is true (germany gettin gout of depression first), that would be great..

I think it is somewhat true. Not saying I approve tho. Its been said that when ever the US\'s economy gets low, the government finds a war to start. Almost overnight you have company\'s hiring more people, people buying stuff, it kicks it up. Is this a good way to do it? Not at all, it just happens that our (the us) government leaders, at least some of them, are too lazy to do something real to fix it.

In the case of Germany, i think that was a bit more of a case of defending ourselves, at least from what i know about it. All the other wars the US has been in, i think they entered on their own.

I could easily be wrong tho, so don\'t quote me on it

[Nakedguy90]

Saying you are fighting for peace is like saying you are trying to spread veganism, yet you work in a slaughterhouse

[PirateJohn]

Saying you are fighting for peace is like saying you are trying to spread veganism, yet you work in a slaughterhouse

I disagree.  I refer you to my question about World War II as an example.  If you don\'t think fighting for peace was the answer in that scenario, then what would you have done?  I\'m curious to hear.

Sometimes war is necessary to ensure long-term peace, because there are just some people in the world who will run amok and force is the only way to stop them.  Sometimes you have to make things worse for a while to make them better in the long run -- much like a surgeon who has to create wounds in a person to get rid of their wounds.

[jeep]

Very good point point pirate john.
      Wether it be in the case of an individual in a bar altercation or a country in an international dissagreement, you can not always talk your way out of a fight. If the other party, wether an individual, a segment of the comunity, a nation or alliance of nations will not relent and continues to behave aggressively, you will need to show aggression and throw some punches either pre-emptively or in reply to put a stop to thier behavior and hopefully ensure some semblence of peace in the long run.
   Take this scenario: You are in a local Texas bar and you observe a group of drunk gang members, continually making threats to others including to bring a weapon in. One of the gang members feels because a few others law abiding patrons have conceal carry permits he should be able to carry a weapon also. The other people in the bar have have tried talking to the drunks to cease thier behavior and forget about the weapon idea but still they defy reason and continue. Next you know the one of the drunks is back and he advises he has a weapon, no one has seen it for sure but it could be one. The other patrons consult the Bar staff who decide to impose a ban on the drunks from the premises. The Drunks threats increase to treatening to kill other patrons.
So what should you and the other patrons do?

1) Do nothing more, order another beer. After all why should they not be allowed a weapon when others are, and they have not actually attacked anyone yet. You see it as the least violent way to handle them and means you wont have to put yourself in harms way. The risk is that he and his mates might actually be nuts enough to attack someone in the car park later as you all go home in the evening.

2) Do a group of you deal to the drunks with a few good hits or even with the aid of other patrons permitted weapons if the situation escalates to require it. That is the more violent option and there is the chance of sustaining injury yourselves but you may ensure the drunks will not continue to be a threat to yourself others once and for all so you can enjoy the rest of the night.

   And these players can be substtituted for a global situationon. Remember that \"drunk gang members\" or Communist North Korea is presently only in a state of cease fire from a previous bar fight they had with the \"Other patrons\" US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and the bar staff (Sanction imposing UN) back in the 1950s called the Korean war.
   So i would contend that at times it is indeed common sence to be offensive and even pre-emptive to be defensive, and that war will remain a nessecary last resort as long as humans are on this planet. There is a price to pay for everything.

[Nakedguy90]

I disagree.  I refer you to my question about World War II as an example.  If you don\'t think fighting for peace was the answer in that scenario, then what would you have done?  I\'m curious to hear.

Sometimes war is necessary to ensure long-term peace, because there are just some people in the world who will run amok and force is the only way to stop them.  Sometimes you have to make things worse for a while to make them better in the long run -- much like a surgeon who has to create wounds in a person to get rid of their wounds.

I\'m not sure I\'ll have to get back to you, but war may provide a temporary peace. Hatred usually brews during peace and causes rebellion or invasion. Just look at the Turks or the Moors, they invaded and held on to their land until rebellion occurred. Oh it does get me mad when I hear that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what ended the war. That is not true, it was the threat that we would kill the Emperor that ended the war.

[Bboy1986]

I said no but there are several stipulations.  If your intention is to stop a tyrant I think it is justified, however even in that case avoid civilian casualties.  Also, ideally, take out said tyrant directly rather than ravening a whole country with war.  For a perfect example of what not to do look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.