Why is going to war not right?

Answer 1

Answer

I think that war is necessary and natural. Humans have been fighting wars since the beginning of creation. I think that war is right when it is fought for the right reasons.

Answer

This is a question that is very difficult to answer, I feel it is wrong by principle but very necessary for the greater good of a society. War is necessary when the outcome benefits the greater good of the people who are involved, for example in feudal Japan the country was split into numerous factions with different warlords called shoguns who ruled certain areas. These warlords would war with each other over trivial matters with no apparent end to the cycle of pointless deaths.

One shogun decided that he would put an end to this and unite the country, to do this he waged war on every warlord one by one. In the end he became the leader of the country and put an end to all the pointless wars between the warlords. The war that was waged was necessary for the country and for the people of Japan to be at peace.

There are many instances when this has been the case, countries like China, England, Egypt and even the United States have all fought wars for the greater good of the people of those countries.

I think when a society is in chaos or oppressed the only outcome will be war, under those circumstances war is necessary for the preservation of that society in the long run. Self preservation is instinctive in all of us, people will go to many extents for self preservation. When a group of people are put in a situation where all are at risk that self preservation turns into a social preservation, at that point that society is willing to go to war for the greater good of the people. This is instinctive and natural for all species on the planet.

People who think that war is wrong are correct, but those who think that we can live without war are foolish. When I decided to answer this question I was caught in a crossroads of ideas, war is right and at the same time war is very wrong. So far I can not find any middle ground on this subject, When I analyzed both perspectives of this I was confused by the complexity of it.

War is wrong for many reasons, the most important one being death. Hitler had millions killed and waged war for the sole purpose of his own ego, the wars he started where wrong in every way.

The allied countries that defeated him waged a war for the greater good of humanity, people died witch is wrong but they stopped him from taking over Europe and maybe the world. His cause for war was wrong but the allies cause was right.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor they started a chain of events that would change warfare forever. The bombing of pearl Harbor was wrong but was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wrong or right, killing all those people was wrong but it put an end to the war and saved the lives of who knows how many young men being enlisted into the military on both sides.

From that war we learned a terrible lesson and sometimes it takes a war to teach us that turning a blind eye to a maniac bent on world domination might not be a good idea, or dropping the biggest bomb doesn't always mean that you've won, we might have stopped the war but we lost a lot more than a war, we lost hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives that never took one shot at us and didn't even want the war.

So in conclusion I would like to say that war is wrong in every sense of the word, but war is very much necessary for the growth and preservation of society.

Answer

I would like to take a moment to dispel the myth of the "good war," especially in regards to WWII. The second World War was not a war fought for the preservation of society or to stop a maniac bent on world domination. Consider these points:

1. Some say "Hitler was bent on world domination and had to be stopped." The idea that the U.S. wanted to stop Hitler simply because of his expansionist policies is absurd. The United States has been an imperialist power since its inception, beginning with the savage wars waged against the Native Americans for their land and resources to the current war in Iraq waged for the same reasons. American foreign (and domestic) policy has always been the continued economic and military domination of the world, i.e., "Pax Americana." The notion that WWII was fought to stop Hitler's expansion is true enough, but this was not an end unto itself. The United States has no problem with world domination as long as it is the U.S. doing the dominating.
2. Some also say "Hitler was a fascist who had committed crimes against humanity." The notion that the U.S. had humanitarian reasons for going to war is equally absurd. The history of the United States has been one of systematic genocide against the native people of this continent, a phenomenon still very prevalent in the U.S. during the 40s and 50s.
3. Add to this the practice of segregation and violence against Blacks, the fact that F.D.R. refused to sign an anti-lynching bill and likewise refused to enforce several court decisions and legislation designed to decrease violence against black communities, the fact that he had known about the treatment of the Jews and Gypsies in Germany well before the war and yet did not react with outrage or calls for war, and the existence of Japanese interment camps during the war, and the idea that this war was fought for "democracy" reveals itself for what it is--nonsense. None of these practices magically changed after the war, simply because that was the reason for the war. So, just why was this war fought? What was it's purpose? The same reasons all wars are fought: Economics and imperialism.
4. As early as 1935, some members of Congress had petitioned for economic sanctions and even preliminary military action against Nazi Germany for their human rights violations (yes, like I said, it was known before the war that the Holocaust was underway). However, many U.S. companies had millions invested in Nazi Germany, such as DuPont, GM, Ford, Exxon, and ITT. All of these companies lobbied against sanctions and demanded that the U.S. treat Hitler in a propitiatory (or should I say "proprietary"?) manner, which it did.
5. ITT and DuPont continued to create machines that were used in concentration camps to categorize citizens so that they could be exterminated more expeditiously; Ford and GM continued to manufacture parts for Nazi tanks and jeeps; and Exxon continued to provide Germany with fuel. All of this was done because, as one businessman said, "Hitler was too good for business." After the war, the United States began to systematically dominate the third world, beginning with Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam; today, this imperialistic foreign policy remains and is being implemented throughout the world, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Yugoslavia, in Central and South America, and with increasing military pressure being placed on China.
6. Wars are most often fought by the elite, though, of course, not in a material sense. That responsibility befalls the average citizen, even though the interests of the governments have never been the interests of the populace, which is why they have become so adept at manufacturing the consent of the American people via propaganda machines like the media and popular opinion.

Answer

Well... i too see the world as a playground, if someone has candy, we ask right? So suppose one of these little kids asking for candy happens to be the one in charge, give him first don't we? Well i see wars to be just this.. show off that you are in charge.

The U.S. has UNWILLINGLY gone this way EVERY war they have started or that they have been in have ended up them (and whom they are with) to win... That way America is not necessarily a bully but rather ONE of the biggest and so they get responsibility..

What good have other super powers done? China as we Europeans see it is "corrupt" United States has had more racism, more warfare, more cruelty, more crime and more and more internal issues... And yet they help when needed...

What would it be like with Saddam tormenting his people and not threatening to have bio-weapons? Well i can answer that Europe would TRY to NEGOTIATE about the human rights to be recognized in Iraq. YES America attacked YES they're still there NO they aren't ONLY there to insure the rise of democracy but because if they LEFT Iraq there would be an out burst: "America Gives Up??"

Maybe you don't see the WHOLE issue here, IF America would get out of Iraq it would be in many phases... it's like you are fighting a guy you don't know and who knows you he knows how and where to hit and he knows who your friends are and that the girl he hangs out with is your girlfriend, so he can threaten you with stuff like "I'll shoot you if you don't go away from MY girl" that was a figure of speech, girlfriend is oil and "I'll shoot you" is Saddam threatening with bio-weapons... let's look back, Iraq war ignition

1. U.S. gets intell of POSSIBLE threat in Iraq
2. intelligence reports that yes something is cooking
3. public questioning
4. it is found out that Iraq might have a bio weapon program this keeps on going until Saddam does threaten, America is against the wall now, A. Attack? or B. Keep watching and be UNSURE of what to do... Apparently Bush had made up his mind about attacking is this wrong? "Hell yeah!" would be Patton's words.

My point:Iraq and war in general is wrong War doesn't solve problems, war just gives a broader perspective about eluding wars during peace HOWEVER some circumstances are extraordinary if someone points a gun at you and says "I'll kill you" what would you do? you are 90% sure he is capable of that, but you are 10%unsure. you have the choices.. observe him or attack.. America, (Bush and his damn bill to get right for presidents ALONE to start war) simply made the wrong one in Iraq.

Also as a jump-up on that War isn't the only solution, in fact, sometimes the best solution is not to do anything what i am about to say is true and you can propably check it in Google.

Have you heard of the "Winter War"? yes WINTER not COLD war, Winter war was the smallest theater in WW II the war that stopped in a way Hitler's plan of attacking and conquering the USSR. What heppened in a nutshell is this: USSR (russia) declares war on Finland (small country of a few million at the time, situated between Sweden and Russia) Finland was democratic but due to the times being, had elected a "War Marshal" as they call it.

This figure had all power in Finland (German born btw the name of Mannerheim) he asked Germany for troops to aid Finland and so they did they sent around 200,000 soldiers and had about 15,000+ Finns trained with the Wehrmacht.

The "Winter war" was won by Finland which gave Hitler a new "friend" (they weren't really allies) Hitler you see wanted Russia and so, after the winter war (this was in fact 2 wars, the winter war and what they call the "Continuent War" yes it's a real word.. at least in Finnish it is to them TALVI SOTA and JATKO-SOTA) In the end Finland lost it is not important what happened in the end but what happened in BETWEEN here's the most important part: Finland beat off the Russians and so, Hitler asked War Marshal Mannheim to attack Leningrad (The weak point of the Russians their "Supply Center" it was poorly defended because Germans had attacked Russia so what does Mannheim do? HE REFUSES!! yes to Hitler and their most powerful pal, ALSO: Mannheim COMMANDED Hitler to take his troops back leave they did.. BURNING about a third of the country.

Had Finland attacked Leningrad Russia would not have been able to supply their men so well and would possibly have lost, Germany would have won their greatest achievement yet and they would not have needed to fight a 2-way war on 2 sides of Europe. They could have gotten their troops back to France, Fortify the beach and gotten more planes to Norway and could have used more resources to build U-boats instead of rifles for Russian front. They could have had Luftwaffe get more planes and better airfields they could have increased u-boat "havens" in the Norwegian fjords and even attack English supply routes with about 2-times the power they did in the WWII Germany wasn't weak it was spread out odd, in a sense we get to thank one of the few European countries of NOT fighting :)

Answer

I don't really know if war is right or wrong. One side of me says that war should be here to keep the peace between countries but then innocent people die in the crossfire! Another side says that we should leave countries to sort out their own mess and not get involved risking our countries own lives!

Answer

War is what living things do. If war is wrong, then existence is wrong. And if existence is wrong, then war is alleviating that problem, one dead man at a time.

Answer

Thou shall not kill. Love your enemies. Your not a very good Christian if you don't at least think about these words. I understand that war has it's benefits, and sometimes war is the only thing left. However I wish that people cared a little bit more about what it says in the Bible. I personally think that war is for the weak. On the other hand, people who fight in wars are so strong. So basically, we should do our best to prevent war, if you can't prevent it, then be brave and endure it.

(This answer does not make sense. The vast majority of this country is Christian(or some denomination). Yet, we are constantly involved in wars as a nation. We also know more so than any other in the name of their god Christians have killed more people. The bible directly accounts for the most violent, ruthless and brutal wars we know of. Well over 5 million people died in the wars of the bible. This person did nothing to answer your question rather promote his faith.

Answer

"War is what living things do. If war is wrong, then existence is wrong." Unjustified murder and rape are also things people have always been doing. Does your argument give them the right?

Also, you said "If war is wrong then existence is wrong": not everyone agrees or participates in war. When I was a little kid, everyone said to talk about your problems instead of fighting the other kid. And then when I grew up and learned that the same adults who told me this are supporting the killing of other people because "talking didn't work". I felt cheated out of my humanity. What's human about killing other people? They're PEOPLE, with mothers and fathers and siblings and friends, for god's sake! I would rather die than kill, and I'm sure other people would agree with me.

Ignore this if you're not a Christian: what about "Thou shalt not kill" and "love your enemies" is wishy washy, like your answer was (to previous answer). Do you think Jesus would join a war? Do you think he meant, "love your enemies.... but you can also kill them if you REALLY need to. And forget what I just said about not killing people." I think he was being pretty damn clear. We're supposed to leave the judging to him. How can we kill, when we really think about it, a person god LOVES (more than you love your family and friends!)

Any true Christian cannot say they support war! It's funny how they hate the idea of unborn babies being killed but think the idea of their sons and daughters murdering and being murdered for the economy of the United States is NOBLE?! I don't understand war. Some people use the argument that they're just protecting their land/family, etc. FYI, it's not YOUR land, it's gods, and they're not YOUR family, they're gods, and also: you're supposed to treat every person as if they were your brother or sister. You simply CANNOT JUSTIFY KILLING!

Answer

the reality is even if war is right or wrong their is nothing we can do about its gonna happen no matter what you do. these people say so much about but really if they were in a situation where their life was in danger do you think they would care if someone died to save their own neck? If North Korea nuked the western sea board what would you do in response? im not saying war is right im saying that its been around as long as man has and i doubt its gonna stop its part of earth. the person above has a lot to learn that family is god's family but it is also YOUR family they are saving YOUR neck. they are putting THEIR life on the line for YOUthey die so that YOU can live a free life. i am an American soldier. I'm putting my life on the line so that you can complain about war sometimes you should really sit back and think before you say things like that. and the fact that you swore right after talking about jesus makes if pretty clear that you aren't a christian. im not a christian i serve in the military for you. i am doing this because i want to protect you if that means killing someone then yes i will do it. i do not know you but i am willing to die for YOU and the rest of America not for the economy of America. in return you can at the very least respect those who fight i don't like killing but if it keeps you and the rest of America safe i am willing to kill or be killed. i could care less if you don't like war in fact nobody cares what you think of war because its not going to stop because you posted an answer on Wikipedia about it. War won't stop and it will never stop because humans are naturally evil. i believe that war is part of who we are we cannot get rid of it. i want a world of peace i want the killing to stop and my way of doing that is serving in the military. i may have not answered your question to be honest whoever can answer correctly is a very wise person.

Answer

I quote John Stuart Mill on this subject:

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 a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, - is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

War is a horrible thing, and we must be far more careful than we (as a world) have been in the past engaging in it. However, until we have achieved a utopia where there are no evil people willing to kill, rape, and oppress their fellows, war will always remain a tool of last resort. It is not to be entered lightly into, and all reasonable means to avoid it should be taken; however, once those reasonable means have been exhausted, war is not only Right, but Moral, as well.

Also, note that all major religions (excepting perhaps Buddhism) doctrinally support the concept of a Just War - one where the moral cost of doing nothing is worse than the moral cost of fighting. Note that last part - war is a horrible thing, and inflicts terrible moral damage, even in a Just fight. However, doing nothing can also have a moral (and practical) cost. Wars become Right when the moral cost of waging them is less than the moral cost of doing nothing.

Sadly, the vast majority of wars humans engage in fail the above tests, and are entered into for selfish or greedy reasons, and can't be morally justifiable.

Answer 2

War is a tool of Satan. God wishes all of his children to live in peace and harmony, but Satan only wishes discord among Gods children. He therefore puts it in the hearts of some men that war is required to get gain and dominion over others.
It is however lawful and right that people are allowed to defend themselves against such despots. Though I might add that it is not right the they do so without just cause if there is a way of settling thing in a peaceful manner.

A: 2

War that is initiated for the purpose of propitiating the greed of megalomaniacs is absolutely vile and atrocious. But a war that is waged as an act of self-defense to protect virtuousness, propriety, honor and piety is a righteous and absolutely necessary battle. The true reason behind the initiation of unprovoked wars has always been as a result of egomaniacs who want to become Gods on earth. There were many vicious and absolutely evil men who surreptitiously used religious crusades to justify mass annihilation of innocent men, women and children in the name of God and that is an example of wars that were absolutely heinous (not right).

Going to war in order to plunder the wealth and resources of others is absolutely wrong. Waging battles with others to compel them to accept your personal and religious ideologies is absolutely atrocious. The sadistic abuse of financial, intellectual and military power to unjustly suppress, enslave and exploit others is inhumane and demonic.

A: 3

I wholly agree with the above statements that war is absolutely wrong - but only in some cases. Waging war to dominate others is not only wrong but it is very wrong. However, there are cases where, a difficult decision it may be, war is a necessary evil to prevent an even greater evil. A prime example is the Second World War where the Allied troops of the UK, America and Russia (along with many others in cluding Canada, New Zealand, Austraila and so on) were forced to wage war on Nazi Germany and the Japanese, in order that even further and even more wiedespread bloodshed should be avoided as a result of the actions of the Nazi and Japanese aggressors.

A: 4

I will defend myself.

Answer 3

I think war isn't always wrong because you have to defend your country instead of just watching innocent people die.

I also think war isn't wrong because instead of a war they could solve their problems another way.

Answer 4

It depends on how any war could be as being how what countries are against each one.

Answer 5

This is an opinion question so there is no right or wrong answer, but think of it like this; Are you justified in defending your self in a fist fight?

Answer 6

It is, if you're fighting for a suitable cause, like human rights.