I do not agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
Firstly, there are definitely a lot of other ways of getting what a country wants. For example, diplomatic talks. Of course diplomatic talks may take up some time and hassle but I believe it's a better way for countries to get their point across.
Yes, one may say that diplomatic talks are such a hassle and countries may never even come to any consensus but I think that doesn't make war the only way out.
I'm sure countries can always give and take, like a trade.
Secondly, war to most people is obviously not a happy thing. It kills many people and mostly innocent lives. It MAY be effective in getting their points across but in the end is it worth it? Will her people be happy about what the country has achieved after so many lost lives?
Thirdly, I do not think that there is anything so important that a country wants which can cause the country to make a decision like going to war, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives. The funny thing is, usually after the war, because of the damage done to the country or the ego of the other country, consensus may still not be met.
In conclusion, I think that war is definitely not necessary for countries to get their point across as i believe that nothing is more important than thousands of human lives.
I do not think that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
First and most importantly of all. War involves not just a country's military. It involves and affects every single person in the country. Many lives could be lost in war, many innocent lives. Including children. Do you think its right allowing innocent people to die just to get a point across? No. I think its just absurd and unfair. Also, think and consider about the families and people who've lost their beloved ones and homes due to war.
Secondly, violence doesn't neccessarily solve everything. Yes, it could be used as a last resort. But even when used as a last resort, do you think it can solve all problems? A point might get across, but the aftermath of war would bring about more problems. Also, the countries' citizens involved in the war could end up harbouring more hate and anger against the opposing country hence bringing about further violence.
I believe there are other better, safer and a more reasonable approach to get a point across, in between countries. If a point couldnt get across, and both countries could not reach to a point of agreement. Both countries could always approach the UN(united nations) and let the UN come up with a solution. This way, all is fair and no innocent lives are lost.
sometimes, countries have been forced to go to war to defend themselves or in some cases to pre-empt an attack on them. in other instances, countries have been forced to go to war to aid their allies and sometimes to declare war on a country to prevent genocide.
for example, when india defended bangladesh against the pakistanis, it seemed that india was actually involving itself in a civil war of another country.
the pakistanis troops were mercilessly killing the civilians. therefore, in order to save the bangladeshis from genocide and to give them independence, it is only right that india stepped in.
HOWEVER,
in my opinion, war can never provide a win-win solution.
in any war, there will be two opposing sides, or maybe more, but what remains as solid as stone is the fact that lives from all sides are lost in the battle, and eventually, it is humanity as a whole which loses.
i quote amanda on this one.
I do not think that there is anything so important that a country wants which can cause the country to make a decision like going to war, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives.
we have heard of unsuspecting civilians who are killed on the streets, or in their sleep, by bombs, planes and rockets. and science has become an uglier monster with the inventions of weapons of mass destruction, intended to wipe out the entire population with just a touch of a button.
i find this an extreme act of brutality. because it is unjust to inflict pain on human beings for just being on the wrong side. many unfortunate civilians are left homeless and destitute, desperate in their continuous struggle for survival against the plague of starvation and disease that afflicts everyone in its path.
not only does war arouse hatred and break human bonds, it takes human lives and destroys homes, leaving a darker and bleaker world.
War is one way to get countries' points across but it's not the ONLY way to get a point across.
Diplomatic talks could get countries' points across, which led rise to the UN and peace keeping forces. However, talks are obviously useless when there is aggression in a country.
The only time when war is the only solution to getting a country's point across is when a war-torn country retaliates by war themselves. their point should be that they obviously want the war to stop.
War and violence should be the last resort to getting a point across.
I also do not agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
Firstly, Like what Messiah said, by having war between countries, we have to take many things into consideration. Such as, the number of innocent lives lost, the impact on future generations, the costs incurred during the war and the mass destruction of buildings. All these effects, in one way or another will worsen the already bad situation if a country insists on going to war.
Secondly, I feel that we have become more aware of the consequences of having war. Many of us at one point in time took history in our secondary school and we knew that only after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did Japan surrender on September 2, 1945 and ended World War 2. They only agreed to surrender after risking so many innocent lives. Not only that, large numbers of people died in the following years from the effects of radioactive poisoning. Was it fair to the civilians?
Thirdly, in my opinion, that there are more civilised way to address a situation. Like what Amanda mentioned, countries can get together and have diplomatic talks and there is bound to be a solution to the crisis. This is far better than having war because nobody gets hurt and could end up in a win-win situation, although it reqires both parties to compromise with one another.
In a nutshell, I feel that there are better and more diplomatic ways to face the situation than war for countries to get their point across. In this way, not only do they come to a certain agreement, innocent lives are spared too.
To an extent, I have to agree that war COULD be one way for countries to get their point across.
Quoting amanda and messiah on this, what if the "diplomatic talks", "better, safer &more reasonable approach" does not work out? Do the countries continue their dispute aimlessly, with no end?
Sometimes war MAY really prove to be the only way out. A war causes immense impact, a war shows power. These proves to be what is needed, to win a dispute.
Nevertheless, like maisara, I don't think a war provides a win-win solution.
Prior to World War II, the results of a war is close to our hearts. The heart wrenching cruelty of war..Perhaps this could prove to be the fact that emotional intensity MAY put endings to disputes, MAY seem to be a way for countries to get their point across?
A person I know once said that countries were like little children. Sometimes, if you get a little mean with them, say impose sanctions and trade embargos, they'll listen and stop violating the human rights of their people (Myanmar) or maybe they just won't listen and keep torturing them either way (N.Korea). In the end, we have to weigh how serious is the misdemenor of the current status quo and the benefits going to war will bring the country in the end against the ramifications of war.
As we all know, war is an awful thing, yet sometimes, it is necessary- maybe for self-preservation, otherwise to make a very strong point. Take the six-day war.
Was it right for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to gang up to eradicate Israel? Probably not from this side of the fence, but it obviously made sense to the four, because the point they wanted to make is that Israel, 'that Zionist State', had stolen the land of their forefathers and on top of that, the sacred grounds that they considered holy and that was wrong. In the eyes of the Arab states, war was necessary because diplomatic talks would never get Israel to give their land back and weighing this against the lives and resources of the country, the leaders obviously felt that war was necessary to get their point across. I don't think going to war was right, but I can understand why the Arab states did it.
How about Israel? Was she right to go to war with the Arab nations? In the name of self-preservation, I would say yes. Were they right to ask help from UK and USA and in the end, end up with more land then when they started? Questionable.
Eitherway, what I am trying to say is that in a perfect world, we COULD just compromise and give and take, but in our imprefect world, not many countries are willing to give what the other side needs, and that is where war comes in. In a perfect world, we could resolve things by diplomatic talks but in our imperfect world, sometimes, if the country feels that the ramifications of war is worth it, war is all that can result.
I agree with Jolene that War is not the ONLY way for countries to get their point across.
However according to the statement,"war is SOMETIMES the ONLY way for countries to get their point across". For that, i agree.
In every country there are leaders. In every country there are intelligent people. In every country there are people who can weigh the cost and effects.
But war stil exists. Chris once emphasized on the importance of Idealogy. It had always left an impact on me. "Idealogy is a scary thing my friends"
In some situations, war can be ineveitable. Instead of causing lives, it might actually be saving more instead.
Thus war is SOMETIMES the ONLY way for countries to get their point across.
Perhaps what Cheryl said is true. We live in an imperfect world.
Most of the time, coming up with a diplomatic solution is not as easy as it seems. Both parties might not even want to give in and compromise, sometimes due to the fact that they want to assert their position as the world leader for example or even pride. This does not solve the problem at all.
In this day and age, we can still see that war is evident in some parts of the world although on a much smaller scale compared to World War 2. This only shows that sometimes war is the only way to get a point across. I feel that war should be declared only if it is the last resort.
i feel that war is not only way for countries to get their points across. as mentioned by many before me, when a country goes to war, many factors have to be considered and that violence will not solve anything.
a good example of how a country got their point across without war was the North Korea nuclear issue. North Korea wanted food and fuel assistance and they achieved it without having to go through war.
also, as mentioned, diplomatic talks is also another way to get a country's point across. one should never underestimate the power of words. talking to each other and reaching a compromise is a good way of solving issues.
I partially agree with this statement, that war is somewimes the only way for countries to bring their point across. Firstly, I agree partially with this statement because sometimes, it is difficult for countries to hold diplomatic talks with each other, because of stubborness on one side of the two countries, refusing to abide with the guidlines that the other country has given. Hence, war in this case, would be able to bring across the point. secondly, i also disagree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across. if the two countries are willing to cooperate by other means, then war in this case may not be an option. Also, it may have many innocent lives killed. Hence, in conclusion, i view that the option of war can be exercised wisely.
Yes, at the end of the day it still depends on what are the pros and cons. Of course, if disputes can be settled with any other means other than war, it will of course be much better that way.
Like what Maisara said, if it means defending themselves from an attack then I believe war in inevitable.
However, I strongly believe that most situations can be settled without war.
I do not think that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
First and foremost, the loss of human lives is wat tat struck our mind whenever we tink of this topic.Tink bout the family members tat are affected, is it fair to them? same goes to us? how will we feel when we lost our love ones in a war? devastating isnt? Why do we have to kill our own kind rather than sorting things out in a more peaceful manner? Like say, a conference meeting for everyone to give their viewpoints and solutions to that particular conflicts or disputes.This way, no human lives would be involve.
Secondly,war between countries can sometimes be the main reason to stir up even more conflicts in other countires.Lyk for instances, the 911 incident, even though America and Afghanistan had a short war, the aftermath of war caused people in indonesia and even malaysia to turn against their government. Thus this even affected singapore, who sent out forces to the airports and causeway to guard against terrorist.Afterall, its still the people who suffered.
In conclusion,it is not neccesary to start a war to get points across.I tink tat it is always the best solution without the sacrificing any human lives.
I do not agree that war is the only way for countries to get their point across. It is one way to solve problems but it is a very destructive one. Imagine the number of innocent lives lost just because both countries cannot see eye to eye on the issue. Is it fair to those people who were killed during the war or even to the victim's family members?
There are definitely other ways too but what it those methods fail? Should it really resort to war after that too? The world would be such an ugly place to live in with all the fighting going on every other day.
Therefore the countries shouldnt resort to war to get what they wanted but if the war can bring about changes that will do more benefit than harm than why not.
"When the Rich wage war its the poor who dies." - Linkin Park
Totally agreeing with this statement, I would like to say that war is NEVER the way to put a point across. We were created for a reason, and this reason that many of us make out of isn't to die in a war, who on earth lives day to day, taking exam after exam upgrading himself over and over again just to sacrifice himself in a war? All of us inspire to be great in one way or another.
So what does war do? In my opinion, war is a violent, deathly, destructive way of proving ones' pride. Most of the wars that have happened or are happening are due to pride. People just make up other reasons seeming more serious and crucial to side-track people from the hard, stupid truth that war goes on because of pride.
At the cost of that pride are millions of lives lost. Not just soldiers but civilians as well.
In conclusion, solving a crisis just simpily isn't a good enough reason for more destruction.
I don't agree that war is the only way that countries solve their problem. There are many other ways to solve the problem such as through peaceful talks etc.
I believe that by this era, many political leaders would have learnt from history/the past (eg:WWII) that war does no good but harm to the people. It causes not only death but also many economic problems the country has to face.
Furthermore, if a political leader were to announce war with another country, how will the public react/think? What kind of impression will he/she leave on the people?
Thus, it is quite irrational to say that war is the only way to solve problems.
I agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
I know that other than going to war, their other other methods that countries can take to get their point across, one of which is peaceful diplomatic talks.
However, when both countries cannot come to any agreement despite countless diplomatic talks, war is the only solution.
It is like, when 2 parties have different views, no matter how much they rebutt each other, point would not get across. Both parties would still stick firmly to their stand, neither would give way. Such example can also be shown in our everyday lives.
War forces both countries to get each other's point across because they are doing it at the risk of many lifes. For the sake of these innocent lifes, both countries have no choice but to come to an agreement. In the reality, sacrifice is sometimes always necessary for some things to be achieved.
However, if peaceful diplomatic talks could make both parties understand each other's point of view willingly and hence come to agreeable terms, war should be best avoided.
I think the term 'point across' puts a different light on things. Case in point, Israel. Israel can try to bring the arab nations to the negotiation table and 'try and get their point across' that they are ACTUALLY a country, but then, it would be impossible for the Arag nations and Israel to actually negotiate in the first place.
No matter how much they would recognition from the rest of the middle eastern countries, it would simply be impossible to successfully get their point across, save actually going to war. Which I hope they really don't do.
The thing is, we can use these different channels to try to get a point across, but there is no guarentee they will succeed. However, with war as a tool, there will definatly be a higher chance of a point getting through to the other side. Like Israel being called Israel and not 'that Zionist Entity'.
I believe that the power of communication can put a point across in a much better way than war.
I believe that a country is in no right to decide if her people live or die. War is definitely not a way for an innocent life to end.
Imagine going to war because of for example, oil issues. It's as good as two kids fighting over a toy. It is actually quite a lousy excuse for countries to go to war.
If war is necessary, why did they even form the United Nations?
In fact, I believe war is never the way to get their point across. It is only a way to defend themselves from aggressors.
War is a powerful tool to get a point across when all else fails but is it necessary at the expense of many innocent lives?
Going to war with Iraq with reasons like "Saddam Hussein had powerful and illegal weapons which he could use to attack other countries" yet to date, no such weapons or ties have been found. This is just being plain selfish. Many soldiers and Iraqis were wounded. Was it fair to them?
Unless there's is really a need or hard evidence to go to war with another country, I feel that we should just stick to diplomatic talks to sort things out. Like what Amanda said "war is definitely not a way for an innocent life to end". I totally agree with this statement. Choices have consequences.
Like Loyalover, I agree with Jolene that War is not the only way for countries to get their point across. Sure, there are other ways such as diplomatic talks as mentioned in earlier posts.
However i do agree that war is, sometimes the only way for countries to get their points across. I feel that the key word that has made me support the statement is 'sometimes'.
What happens when diplomatic talks fail? How long can countries only hold discussions about their disagreements?
messiahgay said that countries can always approach the UN to help them mediate the situation. However, what gives the countries the guarantee that the UN is all-powerful and whatever their decision is, will be final and conclusive? If one party is still not satisfied with the verdict of the UN, war might still break out.
Therefore I do agree to the statement that war is SOMETIMES the only way for countries to get their points across.
war can never provide a win-win situation. in my opinion of war, both sides lose. the eventual winner is actually the one who loses less.
however, there are some points of hers that i question.
quoting maisara,
we have heard of unsuspecting civilians who are killed on the streets, or in their sleep, by bombs, planes and rockets. and science has become an uglier monster with the inventions of weapons of mass destruction, intended to wipe out the entire population with just a touch of a button.
i find this an extreme act of brutality. because it is unjust to inflict pain on human beings for just being on the wrong side. many unfortunate civilians are left homeless and destitute, desperate in their continuous struggle for survival against the plague of starvation and disease that afflicts everyone in its path.
maisara, how do you define which side is the wrong side?
the innocent children in iraq, are they on the wrong side? or are the victims of the 9/11 attack on the wrong side?
i think that in wars, both sides believe that they have something worth fighting and dying for. the civilians are just unlucky to be caught in the crossfire.
wars are ugly but SOMETIMES necessary.
not only does war arouse hatred and break human bonds, it takes human lives and destroys homes, leaving a darker and bleaker world.
Yes war might arouse hatred and break human bonds and takes human lives and destroy homes. but does it really leave a darker and bleaker world? what about WWII? the victors of WWII, did they leave a dark and bleak world?
i believe that by winning WWII, the allies actually helped sculpt a better world. they formed the UN after WWII to minimize future conflicts.
thus i believe that WWII, brutal as it was, served as a learning tool for the world and helped maintain a good amount of peace.
As stated by Messiah, " ...the aftermath of war would bring about more problems...citizens involved in the war could end up harbouring more hate and anger against the opposing country..."
When theres no point in a war if it just result in another problem, another conflict, another struggle.
Hazwan seem to have a different view towards the aftermath of war.
People learn from history. Our world might be worst off if it werent for WWII. We might not be learn how important and how impactful our choices can be.
War is sometimes the only way to get across a point. It seems like being ethical or not is the controversy. Innocent lives might be at state, but the aftermaths might bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from textbooks.
regarding what wei liang said "War is sometimes the only way to get across a point. It seems like being ethical or not is the controversy. Innocent lives might be at state, but the aftermaths might bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from textbooks"
I have a different opinion regardin this. Yes, War can bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from the textbooks, but dont you think that once is enough? WW2 alone had already taken away billions of live, which also adversely affected trillions of their family members. This is indeed a very hard lesson for them. Furthermore,the ww2 brought intense fear hatred to the world.
Following a research on a recent studies, it was stated that what most American felt for the war with Afghanistan was "coolness". We are now living in a modern 21 century world. If they really learnt a lesson from the previous wars, like say ww2, would they still having such negative views after so many decades??
Hazwan brought up an interesting point, which i agree with. However, if WWII was a learning point then logically speaking(i think) war should no longer be considered.
If war still occurs now then WWII was not much of a learning point wasn't it? So how many learning points do we need?
War no doubt causes a lot of pain to a lot of people. The warzone is only the epicenter, there are stil shockwaves that wil affect other countries, especially neighbouring countries. There will be lost of lives, collapse in economies etc.
I think in this day and age, diplomacy and taking it to the UN SHOULD be the two ways to make a point. I think that society has moved to a stage where having peace is more important then gaining territory or resources like it was 70 80 years ago (Of course there will always be exceptions, like the invasion of Kuwait). I think the added emphasis on diplomacy and the formation of the UN supports this. Many countries also disagreed with the Iraq War.
However, war will always be a way to get points across. Is it the only way or a good way? I do not think so.
27 comments:
I do not agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
Firstly, there are definitely a lot of other ways of getting what a country wants. For example, diplomatic talks. Of course diplomatic talks may take up some time and hassle but I believe it's a better way for countries to get their point across.
Yes, one may say that diplomatic talks are such a hassle and countries may never even come to any consensus but I think that doesn't make war the only way out.
I'm sure countries can always give and take, like a trade.
Secondly, war to most people is obviously not a happy thing. It kills many people and mostly innocent lives. It MAY be effective in getting their points across but in the end is it worth it? Will her people be happy about what the country has achieved after so many lost lives?
Thirdly, I do not think that there is anything so important that a country wants which can cause the country to make a decision like going to war, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives. The funny thing is, usually after the war, because of the damage done to the country or the ego of the other country, consensus may still not be met.
In conclusion, I think that war is definitely not necessary for countries to get their point across as i believe that nothing is more important than thousands of human lives.
I do not think that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
First and most importantly of all. War involves not just a country's military. It involves and affects every single person in the country. Many lives could be lost in war, many innocent lives. Including children. Do you think its right allowing innocent people to die just to get a point across? No. I think its just absurd and unfair. Also, think and consider about the families and people who've lost their beloved ones and homes due to war.
Secondly, violence doesn't neccessarily solve everything. Yes, it could be used as a last resort. But even when used as a last resort, do you think it can solve all problems? A point might get across, but the aftermath of war would bring about more problems. Also, the countries' citizens involved in the war could end up harbouring more hate and anger against the opposing country hence bringing about further violence.
I believe there are other better, safer and a more reasonable approach to get a point across, in between countries. If a point couldnt get across, and both countries could not reach to a point of agreement. Both countries could always approach the UN(united nations) and let the UN come up with a solution. This way, all is fair and no innocent lives are lost.
sometimes, countries have been forced to go to war to defend themselves or in some cases to pre-empt an attack on them. in other instances, countries have been forced to go to war to aid their allies and sometimes to declare war on a country to prevent genocide.
for example, when india defended bangladesh against the pakistanis, it seemed that india was actually involving itself in a civil war of another country.
the pakistanis troops were mercilessly killing the civilians. therefore, in order to save the bangladeshis from genocide and to give them independence, it is only right that india stepped in.
HOWEVER,
in my opinion, war can never provide a win-win solution.
in any war, there will be two opposing sides, or maybe more, but what remains as solid as stone is the fact that lives from all sides are lost in the battle, and eventually, it is humanity as a whole which loses.
i quote amanda on this one.
I do not think that there is anything so important that a country wants which can cause the country to make a decision like going to war, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives.
we have heard of unsuspecting civilians who are killed on the streets, or in their sleep, by bombs, planes and rockets. and science has become an uglier monster with the inventions of weapons of mass destruction, intended to wipe out the entire population with just a touch of a button.
i find this an extreme act of brutality. because it is unjust to inflict pain on human beings for just being on the wrong side. many unfortunate civilians are left homeless and destitute, desperate in their continuous struggle for survival against the plague of starvation and disease that afflicts everyone in its path.
not only does war arouse hatred and break human bonds, it takes human lives and destroys homes, leaving a darker and bleaker world.
War is one way to get countries' points across but it's not the ONLY way to get a point across.
Diplomatic talks could get countries' points across, which led rise to the UN and peace keeping forces. However, talks are obviously useless when there is aggression in a country.
The only time when war is the only solution to getting a country's point across is when a war-torn country retaliates by war themselves. their point should be that they obviously want the war to stop.
War and violence should be the last resort to getting a point across.
I also do not agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
Firstly, Like what Messiah said, by having war between countries, we have to take many things into consideration. Such as, the number of innocent lives lost, the impact on future generations, the costs incurred during the war and the mass destruction of buildings. All these effects, in one way or another will worsen the already bad situation if a country insists on going to war.
Secondly, I feel that we have become more aware of the consequences of having war. Many of us at one point in time took history in our secondary school and we knew that only after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did Japan surrender on September 2, 1945 and ended World War 2. They only agreed to surrender after risking so many innocent lives. Not only that, large numbers of people died in the following years from the effects of radioactive poisoning. Was it fair to the civilians?
Thirdly, in my opinion, that there are more civilised way to address a situation. Like what Amanda mentioned, countries can get together and have diplomatic talks and there is bound to be a solution to the crisis. This is far better than having war because nobody gets hurt and could end up in a win-win situation, although it reqires both parties to compromise with one another.
In a nutshell, I feel that there are better and more diplomatic ways to face the situation than war for countries to get their point across. In this way, not only do they come to a certain agreement, innocent lives are spared too.
To an extent, I have to agree that war COULD be one way for countries to get their point across.
Quoting amanda and messiah on this, what if the "diplomatic talks", "better, safer &more reasonable approach" does not work out? Do the countries continue their dispute aimlessly, with no end?
Sometimes war MAY really prove to be the only way out. A war causes immense impact, a war shows power. These proves to be what is needed, to win a dispute.
Nevertheless, like maisara, I don't think a war provides a win-win solution.
Prior to World War II, the results of a war is close to our hearts. The heart wrenching cruelty of war..Perhaps this could prove to be the fact that emotional intensity MAY put endings to disputes, MAY seem to be a way for countries to get their point across?
A person I know once said that countries were like little children. Sometimes, if you get a little mean with them, say impose sanctions and trade embargos, they'll listen and stop violating the human rights of their people (Myanmar) or maybe they just won't listen and keep torturing them either way (N.Korea). In the end, we have to weigh how serious is the misdemenor of the current status quo and the benefits going to war will bring the country in the end against the ramifications of war.
As we all know, war is an awful thing, yet sometimes, it is necessary- maybe for self-preservation, otherwise to make a very strong point. Take the six-day war.
Was it right for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to gang up to eradicate Israel? Probably not from this side of the fence, but it obviously made sense to the four, because the point they wanted to make is that Israel, 'that Zionist State', had stolen the land of their forefathers and on top of that, the sacred grounds that they considered holy and that was wrong. In the eyes of the Arab states, war was necessary because diplomatic talks would never get Israel to give their land back and weighing this against the lives and resources of the country, the leaders obviously felt that war was necessary to get their point across. I don't think going to war was right, but I can understand why the Arab states did it.
How about Israel? Was she right to go to war with the Arab nations? In the name of self-preservation, I would say yes. Were they right to ask help from UK and USA and in the end, end up with more land then when they started? Questionable.
Eitherway, what I am trying to say is that in a perfect world, we COULD just compromise and give and take, but in our imprefect world, not many countries are willing to give what the other side needs, and that is where war comes in. In a perfect world, we could resolve things by diplomatic talks but in our imperfect world, sometimes, if the country feels that the ramifications of war is worth it, war is all that can result.
I agree with Jolene that War is not the ONLY way for countries to get their point across.
However according to the statement,"war is SOMETIMES the ONLY way for countries to get their point across". For that, i agree.
In every country there are leaders. In every country there are intelligent people. In every country there are people who can weigh the cost and effects.
But war stil exists. Chris once emphasized on the importance of Idealogy. It had always left an impact on me. "Idealogy is a scary thing my friends"
In some situations, war can be ineveitable. Instead of causing lives, it might actually be saving more instead.
Thus war is SOMETIMES the ONLY way for countries to get their point across.
Perhaps what Cheryl said is true. We live in an imperfect world.
Most of the time, coming up with a diplomatic solution is not as easy as it seems. Both parties might not even want to give in and compromise, sometimes due to the fact that they want to assert their position as the world leader for example or even pride. This does not solve the problem at all.
In this day and age, we can still see that war is evident in some parts of the world although on a much smaller scale compared to World War 2. This only shows that sometimes war is the only way to get a point across. I feel that war should be declared only if it is the last resort.
Dexter Tay:
i feel that war is not only way for countries to get their points across. as mentioned by many before me, when a country goes to war, many factors have to be considered and that violence will not solve anything.
a good example of how a country got their point across without war was the North Korea nuclear issue. North Korea wanted food and fuel assistance and they achieved it without having to go through war.
also, as mentioned, diplomatic talks is also another way to get a country's point across. one should never underestimate the power of words. talking to each other and reaching a compromise is a good way of solving issues.
I partially agree with this statement, that war is somewimes the only way for countries to bring their point across.
Firstly, I agree partially with this statement because sometimes, it is difficult for countries to hold diplomatic talks with each other, because of stubborness on one side of the two countries, refusing to abide with the guidlines that the other country has given. Hence, war in this case, would be able to bring across the point.
secondly, i also disagree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across. if the two countries are willing to cooperate by other means, then war in this case may not be an option. Also, it may have many innocent lives killed.
Hence, in conclusion, i view that the option of war can be exercised wisely.
Yes, at the end of the day it still depends on what are the pros and cons. Of course, if disputes can be settled with any other means other than war, it will of course be much better that way.
Like what Maisara said, if it means defending themselves from an attack then I believe war in inevitable.
However, I strongly believe that most situations can be settled without war.
I do not think that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
First and foremost, the loss of human lives is wat tat struck our mind whenever we tink of this topic.Tink bout the family members tat are affected, is it fair to them? same goes to us? how will we feel when we lost our love ones in a war? devastating isnt? Why do we have to kill our own kind rather than sorting things out in a more peaceful manner? Like say, a conference meeting for everyone to give their viewpoints and solutions to that particular conflicts or disputes.This way, no human lives would be involve.
Secondly,war between countries can sometimes be the main reason to stir up even more conflicts in other countires.Lyk for instances, the 911 incident, even though America and Afghanistan had a short war, the aftermath of war caused people in indonesia and even malaysia to turn against their government. Thus this even affected singapore, who sent out forces to the airports and causeway to guard against terrorist.Afterall, its still the people who suffered.
In conclusion,it is not neccesary to start a war to get points across.I tink tat it is always the best solution without the sacrificing any human lives.
I do not agree that war is the only way for countries to get their point across. It is one way to solve problems but it is a very destructive one. Imagine the number of innocent lives lost just because both countries cannot see eye to eye on the issue. Is it fair to those people who were killed during the war or even to the victim's family members?
There are definitely other ways too but what it those methods fail? Should it really resort to war after that too? The world would be such an ugly place to live in with all the fighting going on every other day.
Therefore the countries shouldnt resort to war to get what they wanted but if the war can bring about changes that will do more benefit than harm than why not.
"When the Rich wage war its the poor who dies." - Linkin Park
Totally agreeing with this statement, I would like to say that war is NEVER the way to put a point across. We were created for a reason, and this reason that many of us make out of isn't to die in a war, who on earth lives day to day, taking exam after exam upgrading himself over and over again just to sacrifice himself in a war? All of us inspire to be great in one way or another.
So what does war do? In my opinion, war is a violent, deathly, destructive way of proving ones' pride. Most of the wars that have happened or are happening are due to pride. People just make up other reasons seeming more serious and crucial to side-track people from the hard, stupid truth that war goes on because of pride.
At the cost of that pride are millions of lives lost. Not just soldiers but civilians as well.
In conclusion, solving a crisis just simpily isn't a good enough reason for more destruction.
I don't agree that war is the only way that countries solve their problem. There are many other ways to solve the problem such as through peaceful talks etc.
I believe that by this era, many political leaders would have learnt from history/the past (eg:WWII) that war does no good but harm to the people. It causes not only death but also many economic problems the country has to face.
Furthermore, if a political leader were to announce war with another country, how will the public react/think? What kind of impression will he/she leave on the people?
Thus, it is quite irrational to say that war is the only way to solve problems.
Sally:
I agree that war is sometimes the only way for countries to get their point across.
I know that other than going to war, their other other methods that countries can take to get their point across, one of which is peaceful diplomatic talks.
However, when both countries cannot come to any agreement despite countless diplomatic talks, war is the only solution.
It is like, when 2 parties have different views, no matter how much they rebutt each other, point would not get across. Both parties would still stick firmly to their stand, neither would give way. Such example can also be shown in our everyday lives.
War forces both countries to get each other's point across because they are doing it at the risk of many lifes. For the sake of these innocent lifes, both countries have no choice but to come to an agreement. In the reality, sacrifice is sometimes always necessary for some things to be achieved.
However, if peaceful diplomatic talks could make both parties understand each other's point of view willingly and hence come to agreeable terms, war should be best avoided.
I think the term 'point across' puts a different light on things. Case in point, Israel. Israel can try to bring the arab nations to the negotiation table and 'try and get their point across' that they are ACTUALLY a country, but then, it would be impossible for the Arag nations and Israel to actually negotiate in the first place.
No matter how much they would recognition from the rest of the middle eastern countries, it would simply be impossible to successfully get their point across, save actually going to war. Which I hope they really don't do.
The thing is, we can use these different channels to try to get a point across, but there is no guarentee they will succeed. However, with war as a tool, there will definatly be a higher chance of a point getting through to the other side. Like Israel being called Israel and not 'that Zionist Entity'.
I believe that the power of communication can put a point across in a much better way than war.
I believe that a country is in no right to decide if her people live or die. War is definitely not a way for an innocent life to end.
Imagine going to war because of for example, oil issues. It's as good as two kids fighting over a toy. It is actually quite a lousy excuse for countries to go to war.
If war is necessary, why did they even form the United Nations?
In fact, I believe war is never the way to get their point across. It is only a way to defend themselves from aggressors.
War is a powerful tool to get a point across when all else fails but is it necessary at the expense of many innocent lives?
Going to war with Iraq with reasons like "Saddam Hussein had powerful and illegal weapons which he could use to attack other countries" yet to date, no such weapons or ties have been found. This is just being plain selfish. Many soldiers and Iraqis were wounded. Was it fair to them?
Unless there's is really a need or hard evidence to go to war with another country, I feel that we should just stick to diplomatic talks to sort things out. Like what Amanda said "war is definitely not a way for an innocent life to end". I totally agree with this statement. Choices have consequences.
I agree with this statement.
Like Loyalover, I agree with Jolene that War is not the only way for countries to get their point across. Sure, there are other ways such as diplomatic talks as mentioned in earlier posts.
However i do agree that war is, sometimes the only way for countries to get their points across. I feel that the key word that has made me support the statement is 'sometimes'.
What happens when diplomatic talks fail? How long can countries only hold discussions about their disagreements?
messiahgay said that countries can always approach the UN to help them mediate the situation. However, what gives the countries the guarantee that the UN is all-powerful and whatever their decision is, will be final and conclusive? If one party is still not satisfied with the verdict of the UN, war might still break out.
Therefore I do agree to the statement that war is SOMETIMES the only way for countries to get their points across.
hello again.
i agree with maisara.
war can never provide a win-win situation. in my opinion of war, both sides lose. the eventual winner is actually the one who loses less.
however, there are some points of hers that i question.
quoting maisara,
we have heard of unsuspecting civilians who are killed on the streets, or in their sleep, by bombs, planes and rockets. and science has become an uglier monster with the inventions of weapons of mass destruction, intended to wipe out the entire population with just a touch of a button.
i find this an extreme act of brutality. because it is unjust to inflict pain on human beings for just being on the wrong side. many unfortunate civilians are left homeless and destitute, desperate in their continuous struggle for survival against the plague of starvation and disease that afflicts everyone in its path.
maisara, how do you define which side is the wrong side?
the innocent children in iraq, are they on the wrong side? or are the victims of the 9/11 attack on the wrong side?
i think that in wars, both sides believe that they have something worth fighting and dying for. the civilians are just unlucky to be caught in the crossfire.
wars are ugly but SOMETIMES necessary.
not only does war arouse hatred and break human bonds, it takes human lives and destroys homes, leaving a darker and bleaker world.
Yes war might arouse hatred and break human bonds and takes human lives and destroy homes.
but does it really leave a darker and bleaker world?
what about WWII?
the victors of WWII, did they leave a dark and bleak world?
i believe that by winning WWII, the allies actually helped sculpt a better world. they formed the UN after WWII to minimize future conflicts.
thus i believe that WWII, brutal as it was, served as a learning tool for the world and helped maintain a good amount of peace.
As stated by Messiah, " ...the aftermath of war would bring about more problems...citizens involved in the war could end up harbouring more hate and anger against the opposing country..."
When theres no point in a war if it just result in another problem, another conflict, another struggle.
Hazwan seem to have a different view towards the aftermath of war.
People learn from history. Our world might be worst off if it werent for WWII. We might not be learn how important and how impactful our choices can be.
War is sometimes the only way to get across a point. It seems like being ethical or not is the controversy. Innocent lives might be at state, but the aftermaths might bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from textbooks.
Best regards,
Wei Liang
regarding what wei liang said "War is sometimes the only way to get across a point. It seems like being ethical or not is the controversy. Innocent lives might be at state, but the aftermaths might bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from textbooks"
I have a different opinion regardin this. Yes, War can bring important lessons for future generations which can never be learnt from the textbooks, but dont you think that once is enough? WW2 alone had already taken away billions of live, which also adversely affected trillions of their family members. This is indeed a very hard lesson for them. Furthermore,the ww2 brought intense fear hatred to the world.
Following a research on a recent studies, it was stated that what most American felt for the war with Afghanistan was "coolness". We are now living in a modern 21 century world. If they really learnt a lesson from the previous wars, like say ww2, would they still having such negative views after so many decades??
And ya, this are my views on tat quote........
gary :)
Hazwan brought up an interesting point, which i agree with. However, if WWII was a learning point then logically speaking(i think) war should no longer be considered.
If war still occurs now then WWII was not much of a learning point wasn't it? So how many learning points do we need?
War no doubt causes a lot of pain to a lot of people. The warzone is only the epicenter, there are stil shockwaves that wil affect other countries, especially neighbouring countries. There will be lost of lives, collapse in economies etc.
I think in this day and age, diplomacy and taking it to the UN SHOULD be the two ways to make a point. I think that society has moved to a stage where having peace is more important then gaining territory or resources like it was 70 80 years ago (Of course there will always be exceptions, like the invasion of Kuwait). I think the added emphasis on diplomacy and the formation of the UN supports this. Many countries also disagreed with the Iraq War.
However, war will always be a way to get points across. Is it the only way or a good way? I do not think so.
Leon
Post a Comment