Are you pro-war, anti-war, or somewhere in between?

I myself tend to be pro-war. I think that it is a legitimate tool for states to use in order to achieve their goals, whether these goals be territorial expansion, dominance of trade, or the elimination of a perceived threat.

 

I agree with Machevelli who said a prince should either be at war or preparing for one.

.i believe in the militarism ideology where the goal of the state is to support the military. This leads to a technocracy where instead of having politicians run the nation you have the most qualified people running it.

 

I am neither pro-war or pro-peace. I am pro-what needs to be done.

For example, I supported the war in Afghanistan. I did not support the war in Iraq. Afghanistan was necessary because that's where Bin Laden was. Iraq was not. We didn't have to lie to go to Afghanistan. Not true for Iraq.

Locking yourself into either is dumb.

 

I am anti-war.

 

It has long been said that war is diplomacy by other means. I believe if this country goes to war, a declaration of wat should come from congress. Not a resolution which is nothing more than an opinion of congress. Not a Korea or Libya where congress is by passed. A declaration puts the whole country on a war footing to include civilians with all that it entails. Not trying as many presidents have done to make the civilian populace live a normal life was war isn't happening. That the only ones who truly knew we are at war is the military.

I also believe if we go to war with that declaration we fight it to win as quickly as possible using any means available to do so. The quicker a war is ended with victory the less death and destruction will take place. Prolonging a war for any reason only increases death and destruction. War should be made as ugly as possible so we do not jump into them every other day. Too many people think war is no more than a video game today.

We as a nation also should not get involved in a war unless it is a threat to our national security. Too many times we get involved in a war because it is a feel good operation. Then most of the time we only make the situation worse. Look at Libya, Iraq and Syria recently.

Does the above make me pro war or anti war, you can decide. But it is vital to have the support of the whole country and all of America part of and involved in any war or support will fade.

 

I would add, do not get involved in a war you have no will to win. I too agree Afghanistan was necessary and at the beginning we fought a smart war with a few SF and paramilitary on the ground. With our air power and the 14 tribe Northern Alliance doing the fighting on the ground, the Taliban was driven out. Then we began that stupid nation build thing and forcing democracy upon a people who did not want it. Hence we are still there and the Taliban is making a resurgence.

I also agree taking out Saddam along with Qaddafi and trying to take out Assad was/is plain stupid. Doing so destroyed whatever stability there was in that region of the world.

 

Would it also be a legitimate tool for other organisations or even individuals? What about organisations who consider themselves states but aren’t recognised as such by all others?

At the very basic level, I don’t see why states shouldn’t follow the same moral principles that are expected of citizens. Violence as immediate self-defence or defence of the vulnerable is justifiable and some kind of pre-emptive self-defence could be in some circumstances but violence to get something you want is just aggravated robbery.

 

You know that war is not = war? To defend a country when being attacked by another one is something else as being the attacker.

Of course is there this saying of "war is the last tool of diplomacy" and even much people won't hear this, it is still valid! But the level until starting or going into war must be high ... due to simple fact that war cause always unnecessary victims.

A clear crime is any war started by someone who has the power to do and takes out of this legitimation only in matter of "I'm able to do, so I'm allowed to do and no one can hinder me!". Even some hardcore US forum members may think so as I read and understood out of some posts in other threads, they should not forget that this point was one of the major charges against the caught Nazis in Nurnberg tribunal ... accused by the USA!

 

I support wars when another country represents a clear danger to national security and I think a country should go to war when there's a clear threat to its citizens. Though, wars to "build democracies" are a huge mistake, you can't build a democracy if people aren't ready for one. Overthrowing Qaddafi and Saddam only brought instability and led to more unnecessary casualties, for example.

 

I feel pretty much the same way, War is politics by other means.

- - - Updated - - -

When there is a clear threat, it is too late. You go to war on your terms so as to win, never go to war because you have no other choice because then you lost initiative.

 

Intelligence agencies are capable of anticipating those threats, it doesn't necessarily mean it's too late.

 

Yeah did a great job on 9.11, and all the intelligence in the world wont always help, look at USSR who had ample intel that the Germans would attack, when they would attack and where, and yet they did not alter their position or strategy. Point is this, it is much more advantageous to dictate when you go to war, instead of reacting to a direct threat, which might mean its too late.

 

Depends on the circumstances.

 

I don't disagree with that, of course that it's always better to go to war on your own terms than the opposite and yes, intelligence agencies don't anticipate problems all the time (though sometimes the government just ignores the situation, that's what Stalin did basically). My point is, a country should go to a war when there's a clear reason, that is, a clear threat (anticipated or not), to go to a war and not start wars or getting involved in ones just to topple dictatorships or for territorial expansion. That would be just wasting lives.

 

Well I agree and disagree, sometimes small wars prevent bigger one's. A show of strength sometimes prevents having to go all out in a war against a powerful foe. As far as expansion, what is wrong with expanding your countries resource base? Our country would not be what it is today, if we did not expand toward the Pacific. Without the Mexican American war, we would not have Texas or California both essential elements of the United States economy. If we did not stand up for our selves in 1812, we would not have been able to get Washington and Oregon into the Union, and if we did not get those we certainly would not be able to get Alaska..... so point is that war is a useful tool in nation building as well as nation preservation.

 

It depends of the circumstances. Japan, Germany and Italy also wanted to expand their countries resource base in WW2, it doesn't mean what they did was right and should be "copied" by other nations on a small or larger scale. Most of the countries we see today had to expand in order to be what they are, but I believe there's differences. These days you can't just say "I want this land for these reasons, let's invade it because it's rightfully mine now".

 

. Germany became Germany after they Unified under the Prussians through war. Their aggression in WW2 again was overplaying a hand, unending expansion is sometimes worse then losing some territory. Japan overplayed their hand, they could have kept their eye on China, Korea enough territory for benefit, and enough show of force to stave of direct confrontation with the USA. War is a tool, it can be used for benefit it can also be misused and sometimes dropped on ones foot. In today's world you no longer need to control territory, but you must control the trade routes, and the currency, which requires selective conflicts to maintain that control.

 

Unless a democrat is leading the way to war

 

I am anti-war. Obviously. Also I do happen to have not only one, but two solutions for ever lasting world peace.

Alternative: 1

The worst aggressors of the modern world are not Russia. Nor is it China or Iran. It is the NATO who, by far, are the most disgusting of terrorists and war mongerers out there. Hence, the best solution for world peace is to let every nation on Earth join NATO. Since NATO-members do not attack each other, it is no more than right to open up the doors and let China and Russia join the organization. Together they can find a common external enemy, like Jupiter or Pluto.

Alternative 2:

The North Atlantic Terrorist Organization has, objectively percieved, no justification for exisistence. The Cold War is since long ended and Communism has been dead for decades. The Warzaw-pact likewise. Yet, NATO continues to claim there is an "Eastern threat". However, in reality the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization are clearly acting as aggressors and provocators by including more and more Russian neighbors in their organization leaving Russia surrounded by an Organization that wants to hurt them.

If these terrorist are indeed "Peacekeepers", the most peaceful thing they could do is to determine the whole organization. It is year 2015 and there is absolutely no need of a NATO today.

 

I'm pro war if it comes down to it. Peace through strength is what I most support.

 

Anti war isolationist.

 

Define war, people on here have many a definition.

 

I define war as an armed conflict between two or more parties.

 

Then no.

My definition of war, "The constructed attack on a nation for economic and natural resources, no post war occupation, just in and out taking everything you can and burning everything you can't"

 

I don't think it was Afghanistan's fault that that is where bin Laden was. He wouldn't have been there if we hadn't supported the mujahadeen against the Russkies, which was ONLY because our leaders are the Ivy League adventurous sorts who like to write books and require students read them, a la Indiana Jones. I'd like to take Zbigniew and hang him by his dick.