user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
which holocaust? There's been lots of them.
The Holocaust, the one where about 12 million people were slaughtered by the nazis.
Voted : Yes, I'll list the possibilities below
What causes conflict?
Hunger, Greed, Inequality, Intolerance. Remove want and war is moribund
So hitler is sending troops to the rhineland, rounding up jews like they're going out of style, and plotting his invasion of europe and your solution is to bombard them with bread and pamphlets on the evils of greed? I don't think that'd work.
Voted : No, violence was the best option in those cases
All in all, my answer is no. But the "violence was the best option" thing really doesn't agree with me.
Violence, IMO, is never the best option, but is sometimes the only option. WWII is an example of violence probably being the only option.
That said, when it comes to war, nobody really wins.
What were the reasons for the rise of Hitler?
Or do I have to list them once again.
When the landscape is fertile enough for the Hitlers and Stalins to exist, these things inevitably happen when the right circumstances exist.
I agree with Steelhamster in the sense that most wars are bred in a fertile soil of malcontent and inequality, and as a result perhaps cutting these problems off at the source would decrease war.
Hvaing said that, men will always want SOMETHING, its human nature. And ONCE the cycle of violence has started, it will probably require violence to stop it.
Voted : Yes, I'll list the possibilities below
Violence solves things, but the question must be, is it the best way to solve things? We can hope we get to the point in the growth of human beings where violence is not used to solve problems. Until then, the answer to your question must be that yes, violence does sometimes (too often) solves things.
Voted : Yes, I'll list the possibilities below
The only thing violence is good for is breeding violence.
Until, of course, one faction violently disposes of the other.
You could add to the list other violent conflicts that did nothing to help a given situation: Vietnam War, US attack on Afghanistan, current war in Iraq....
Forcing the point into a false dichotomy is both misleading and a little naughty, Herzog.
In the mind of a neocon, violence only solves something when you can get somebody else to do the violence for you.
(herzie ballot category: "Oblique Defense of Other Repudiated Argument")
I have to concede that there are some instances where large-scale violence effectively "solves" a problem, at least from a tactical standpoint.
Each and every instance of large-scale violence/war is extraordinarily complex, however, and the tactical aspect is but one of a huge number of factors which MUST be considered.
So far no one has come up with a reasonable alternative to violence for solving the types of problems I listed. And yet many voted that it was possible to avoid violence.
Denial? Naivete? Ignorance?
What motivates people to make such ridiculous claims?
widehead: so by fighting in wwII, crushing the nazis and imperialist japanese, and ending the holocaust the US created more violence? How?
No world war 2 was ended with violence and thankfully were all alive becuase of the violence used by us to take down germany. That saying is really never true and although you shouldnt use violence right away to solve something if it comes to it then yes.
|
|
