Are you pro or anti-war?

talkinyite

I'm just curious to see the answers, haven't seen a poll like this in a few years so are you pro or anti-war and for what reasons?

Raze_them_all

Pro, It'd leave way too many unemployed!

jill_valentine

I'm generally anti-war, because it's been a while since I've considered one justified. However, I recognise war as an occasionally necessary, terrible evil.

Dodd

War with who.?
I am lost on this thread.

Chuck Stone

Not sure if serious.

Why would anyone be pro-war?

vicwatson

UN say we are about to reach 7 billion population on this planet soon.. it must be a time for war... though its all arse really. why go killing each other? ultimately this species will eat itself... won't it ?

jugger0

War is human nature, the strong destroy the weak and take their land, with the population rising and resources dwindling its going to become more common, the anti war crowd will be the first to go!

RubyRoss

The notion of being pro-war for the sake of it sounds pathological

There’s a cult worship of soldiers as heroes, which I find odd - it feeds on the notion that WWII allied soldiers were part of the ‘greatest generation’.

I think it’s tragic that that WWI (anti-war) poets are used in the UK as part of the Poppy commemoration such that anti-war poets are incorporated into the very world they resented.

Having said that, I love military history – especially Montgomery’s or Keegan’s account of the history of war fare.

policarp

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Pro, It'd leave way too many unemployed!

The planet of the apes?

Anti, unless it's for survival, I'm not a banker!

InTheTrees

Everyones anti-war until they're threatened.

jugger0

RubyRoss wrote: »

There’s a cult worship of soldiers as heroes, which I find odd - it feeds on the notion that WWII allied soldiers were part of the ‘greatest generation’.

In fairness, storming a beach under machine gun fire while your buddies were in pieces all around you is pretty heroic, compared to some of today's heroes, soccer players who kick a ball around a field for 90 mins... Everyone has a completely different definition of a hero i suppose.

chucken1

RubyRoss wrote: »

The notion of being pro-war for the sake of it sounds pathological

There’s a cult worship of soldiers as heroes, which I find odd - it feeds on the notion that WWII allied soldiers were part of the ‘greatest generation’.

I think it’s tragic that that WWI (anti-war) poets are used in the UK as part of the Poppy commemoration such that anti-war poets are incorporated into the very world they resented.

Having said that, I love military history – especially Montgomery’s or Keegan’s account of the history of war fare.

STAND BACK!!!!

Its astudent

Wolfe Tone

I think war is sometimes necessary... Is that being pro war?

talkinyite

I’m anti-war myself BTW I think political leaders should duke it out between themselves on pay-per-view instead of sending people to die for them.

Dodd wrote: »

War with who.?
I am lost on this thread.

There's 31 on-going wars, you choose.

vicwatson

There's 31 on-going wars, you choose.

List or GTFO

talkinyite

vicwatson wrote: »

List or GTFO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts

Hasmunch

Wars for Some, Miniature American Flags for everyone else

talkinyite

talkinyite wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts

They've already taken Libya off the list, peace hasn't been declared there yet.

hangon

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think war is sometimes necessary... Is that being pro war?

No Wolfe it is sometimes a needed and just situation but never the 'no alternative' option it is often painted.
i have read too many of your posts to think you believe otherwise.

vicwatson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tary_conflicts

Ah the bowlddd wiki, it's always correct init

hangon

Deleted User wrote: »

They've already taken Libya off the list, peace hasn't been declared there yet.

a slight overlook because Syria is next.

kieranfitz

*Sits down, load's rifle and waits for some oxygen wasting soap dodging crusty to say the words constitutional neutrality*

stovelid

I always ask myself what is war good for?















absolutely nothing, uh-huh

Fratton Fred

RubyRoss wrote: »

The notion of being pro-war for the sake of it sounds pathological

There’s a cult worship of soldiers as heroes, which I find odd - it feeds on the notion that WWII allied soldiers were part of the ‘greatest generation’.

I think it’s tragic that that WWI (anti-war) poets are used in the UK as part of the Poppy commemoration such that anti-war poets are incorporated into the very world they resented.

Having said that, I love military history – especially Montgomery’s or Keegan’s account of the history of war fare.

Poppy commemorations aren't pro war, they are to remember people like Sassoon ans Owen who were conscripted and paid the ultimate price.

I know Keegan had a punch up with Billy Bremner in a charity shield game, but I'd hardly consider him a war expert.

paddyandy

In Ireland we love our enemies...Everyone and Everything that's bad for us.Booze fags drugs violence gossip adultery and any sort of mayhem you care to mention.We don't even recognise our enemies anymore only touch us in the pocket area and war is imminent.

Wertz

Depends on the reasons for going to war...

Secretive wars for resources dressed up as democratic crusades: against.

Properly sanctioned wars to free people from a regime or tyrananical rule: for.

War for the sake of giving the militayr something to do and as an excuse to spend billions on a war effort; very much against.

starbelgrade

stovelid wrote: »

I always ask myself what is war good for?


absolutely nothing, uh-huh

Say it again now.

RichieC

jugger0 wrote: »

In fairness, storming a beach under machine gun fire while your buddies were in pieces all around you is pretty heroic, compared to some of today's heroes, soccer players who kick a ball around a field for 90 mins... Everyone has a completely different definition of a hero i suppose.

they had football heroes back then too.

orourkeda

War can rarely be justified and should be avoided at all costs. This appears pretty obvious.

There may certain circumstances whereby war is either justified or unavoidable.

orourkeda

stovelid wrote: »

I always ask myself what is war good for?















absolutely nothing, uh-huh

Theres got to be a better way

Wattle

I'm anti-war generally but I must admit to getting an illicit thrill when I see the Americans in action. The way they call their missions apocalyptic names like: OPERATION KILL EVERY LIZARD. Ok a lot of innocent people get blown to bits but you've got to admire their production values.

Saila

only where jaguars are involved

Freddie59

Too simple a question. War - in all ints nastiness - is sometimes unavoidable. Hitler - what do you do with him? Leave him roll along unchecked? The Japanese? The list goes on. Personally I would be pro-war, particularly with regard to modern Muslim extremist fundamentalists, like the prick that is the President of Iran.

These people's hatred of the West knows no bounds (9/11 anyone?). So, while the West currently has a bigger stick - and should use it - it will be called into action sooner rather than later. Unfortunately.

Fremen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not sure if serious.

Why would anyone be pro-war?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA

Giselle

I'm pro justice and anti injustice. Sometimes being pro justice equals being pro war, and sometimes it equals being anti war.

So I guess I'm pro 'just' war.

If only we could agree on what that constitutes, but I think it might it might be far too subjective for humanity to agree.

Well
If we're being threatened then I suppose I am for it

Running off to random countries to step in and attempt to solve their problems for them... no

Angeles

This depends on the war here now youngfella
I mean i'm completely pro when it comes to the war on zombies, so in turn would be anti to the war on people, simply cause i'd need them to help with the war on zombies.

Giselle

bluewolf wrote: »

Running off to random countries to step in and attempt to solve their problems for them... no

What if the government of that country was responsible for massive breaches of human rights, was pillaging the natural resources to line their own pockets while their people starved, killed all opposition, and it could only get worse?

Surely there's a case for outside involvement in those circumstances (though not for the gain of the countries involved)?

RobbieTheRobber

Giselle wrote: »

What if the government of that country was responsible for massive breaches of human rights, was pillaging the natural resources to line their own pockets while their people starved, killed all opposition, and it could only get worse?

Surely there's a case for outside involvement in those circumstances (though not for the gain of the countries involved)?

So instead an outside power should interfer.
War breaks out many will die including innocents, natural resources will most likely be destroyed land left temporarily unusable.
People will be homeless hunger\poverty will set in.
Outside force will if victorius create new government from non elected officals(former rebels).
What then?

Im not saying we shouldnt try to help other nations people but im not sure war is all that successful in freeing people and as a first effect of war the innocents who are suppossed to be getting help will first suffer greater losses.

Giselle

Giselle wrote: »

What if the government of that country was responsible for massive breaches of human rights, was pillaging the natural resources to line their own pockets while their people starved, killed all opposition, and it could only get worse?

Surely there's a case for outside involvement in those circumstances (though not for the gain of the countries involved)?

I don't really like the idea of one country taking it upon themselves to invade for that though. Maybe if a group of countries all came to an agreement that it's definitely wrong and went to intervene.
We all have different standards of what's acceptable and while that's an extreme case, the line might become blurry.

Wattle

What about the War On Drugs? That seems to be even more of a lost cause than Afghanistan.

cosmicfart

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not sure if serious.

Why would anyone be pro-war?

To fight off tyranny, oppression, annihilation to name but a few.

Giselle

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Im not saying we shouldnt try to help other nations people but im not sure war is all that successful in freeing people and as a first effect of war the innocents who are suppossed to be getting help will first suffer greater losses.

There is no other mechanism against tyrants.

And innocent people suffer anyway, while ruling tyrants smile and shake the hands of foreign ministers and let their people starve or live in terror of opposition. Interim governments are preferable to no government at all while the change to democracy takes place.

The bad guys don't hand over the reins of power, apologise nicely, and go sit in their rooms and think about what they've done.

Murammar Gadaffi reigned for so long because no one took up arms against him. Libya is an unstable, dangerous place now,and will be for a long time. But its free.

War is abhorrent, but sadly sometimes necessary as the lesser of two evils.

RobbieTheRobber

cosmicfart wrote: »

To fight off tyranny, oppression, annihilation to name but a few.

In those situations I would think war is a neccesary reaction, not a choice one takes because your pro War though.

Celly Smunt

War brings prosperity

Giselle

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe if a group of countries all came to an agreement that it's definitely wrong and went to intervene.

You mean...like...a UN resolution?

Leftist

What a question.

Pro-defense yes, pro-war is like something an american christian would say.

Oranage2

Humans are territorial animals so in ways we are all pro war/defense basically using violance to defend or gain territory.

the_syco

Anti war, pro military.

I don't want a war, but think we should be prepared to fight one.

Giselle

Giselle wrote: »

You mean...like...a UN resolution?

Yes, although I had it in mind that the UN generally talk a lot and do not much else :pac: