The "WAR" poll.

[Papa Deuce]

Poll coming.

Referring to war in general. Not just this war.

 

[dcentity2000]

War.

I love that song!



Rich::

 

[babar]

I'd like to hear from the people who said "only in self defense".

Why?

 

[dcentity2000]

I'd like to hear from the people who said "only in self defense".

Why?

I voted for it, but in retrospect I believe I was wrong. The exception to the rule is, I believe, commonly referred to as "humanitarian disasters" (such as Somalia), where travesties are committed on an unimaginable scale (man's inhumanity to man.)

War should be used:

1. In self defence
2. When a situation can only be improved by war

Rich::

 

[babar]

I voted for it, but in retrospect I believe I was wrong. The exception to the rule is, I believe, commonly referred to as "humanitarian disasters" (such as Somalia), where travesties are committed on an unimaginable scale (man's inhumanity to man.)

War should be used:

1. In self defence
2. When a situation can only be improved by war

Rich::

okay then.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I also picked only in self-defense but realized that was wrong... I have no qualms with going into a country when they ask for our help..

 

[Dakota_Lynn]

I also picked only in self-defense but realized that was wrong... I have no qualms with going into a country when they ask for our help..

Yes, another "I picked the wrong option and rethought it" here.

 

[bsnyder]

I also picked only in self-defense but realized that was wrong... I have no qualms with going into a country when they ask for our help..

Like the South Vietnamese?

 

[kirbsam]

if we knew another 9/11 or pearl harbor was imminent, would self defense mean we could preemptively strike, or would we have to wait to get annihilated. or would the nation not have the stomach to do it without the attack on us?

 

[dcentity2000]

if we knew another 9/11 or pearl harbor was imminent, would self defense mean we could preemptively strike, or would we have to wait to get annihilated. or would the nation not have the stomach to do it without the attack on us?

The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that you're only wise after the event. Saying "we got the bloke who done it" carries much more weight than "we got the bloke who looked like he was gonna do it".



Rich::

 

[JennyMominRI]

Like the South Vietnamese?

Bet,to be honest,I don't know enough about that to comment

 

[JennyMominRI]

if we knew another 9/11 or pearl harbor was imminent, would self defense mean we could preemptively strike, or would we have to wait to get annihilated. or would the nation not have the stomach to do it without the attack on us?

If someone points a gun at me and I shoot him before he shoots me,I see that as self-defense

 

[hugsquared]

Can't wait to see where this goes..

 

[shortbun]

War is much more complex than this poll. I'm not voting. peace

 

[crazyforgoofy]

I loved 'other'. Going to war after a direct attack by a known enemy is a given under most circumstances. Going to war when the enemy isn't a specific country or even necessarily a specific entity is another thing.

But I firmly believe that all other avenues MUST be tried first. War is never the first answer. Too many people die, too many people suffer irreparable harm, too many resources are lost, too many unforseen repercussions.

 

[JimB.]

Saying "we got the bloke who done it" carries much more weight than "we got the bloke who looked like he was gonna do it".

Remember, the Israeli's actually struck first in the 1967 war, but if they had waited to be struck (which they KNEW was coming), the country may not even exist today...............

Many perplexing issues in this one..........

Originally Posted by bsnyder
Like the South Vietnamese?

Actually, IMHO, yes.

But remember, the "quagmire" of Vietnam was due to a large degree to the "mismanagement" of strategy by the LBJ administration & the esteemed Robt. McNamara. If the incredibly restrictive ROE's imposed were not there, the outcome MAY have been different.

HOWEVER........... in concert with that, I would have told the SV government they need to clean up their corrupt act or we'd be out of there lock, stock, bomber & barrel................

Oh, BTW, I voted "other"

 

[Sparx]

War should be used:

1. In self defence
2. When a situation can only be improved by war

Rich::

ITA

 

[Charade]

I'd like to hear from the people who said "never acceptable".

Why?

 

[babar]

I'm also assuming that when you say diplomacy doesn't work...it means we've tried every venue out there and came to a consensus with all involved that it has to come down to military action.

and with that I think we can figure out which one I voted for!!

 

[Saffron]

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." 2002 Noble Peace Prize acceptance speach, James Earl Carter, Jr.

I voted "Other".