ANSWERS: 39
  • Yes, war is wrong, and people who argue for it and vote for it are abetting and legitimising organised mass murder.
    • Archie Bunker
      Not all war is wrong.
  • Not always. Think of it on a smaller scale: If someone broke into your house to kill you and your family, would you kill them if it was the only way? War in the name of oil interests is wrong, war to change a country's political process is wrong, but war defending your homeland(Revolutionary War 1776) is defensable.
  • Well, I have mixed opinions with this subject. 1. War is wrong because its two countries angry at each other and fighting each other with malice. With war, you can never know if you're safe or not. The outcome of all wars is always the same...Death, two countries hating each other even more than they did, bombs being used, one country in ruins while the other country flourishes in its victory, countries forming alliances that other countries don't agree with. 2. War is right if it involves one country trying to help another one. Like the war is Iraq. Our country went to war over there to stop Saddam Hussein and take away his so-called "weapons of mass distruction". I could see why our country went to war, to try to make another country better and stop a ruthless leader, but Bush pushed it too far. He's killing too many soldiers, he's putting even more in Iraq, he made the war much worse than it should be. Also, the war on terror, trying to find Osama Bin Laden, its a good thing, trying to stop terrorism(in my opinion, it hasn't really done anything. London got bombed, Madrid got bombed, the US is still facing threats- all after 9/11.
  • Yes war is wrong.But if you fight war to protect the country from some gang members like al-Queda who's intension is to destroy a country, it becomes right
  • War is wrong. Points to you for getting right what the elected leaders of many countries do not get.
    • Archie Bunker
      Not all war is wrong.
  • Of course war is wrong!We are all here for the same purpose to live and die,why not all get along and die when its really your time,not because youv been killed!
  • War is never right, war is never ok, war is always wrong and it does not matter what the reason is. I refuse to believe that any dispute could not be handled better than killing a whole bunch of people. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it is the only way, but let's not confuse that with being right, or ok. Self defense is not wrong.
    • Archie Bunker
      Clear as mud.
  • by all means yes.. i don't find any good result after the war...
    • Archie Bunker
      How so? Were there no good results in the defeat of facism?
    • Linda Joy
      Napolean, Hitler, Japan...
  • The issue on whether war is wrong or not is not as simple as that. Sometimes war is necessary, and sometimes it's not. It depends on the reason why the war is being fought.
  • In a nutshell my friend ...
  • Using strictly that logic, yes war is wrong. But, you are making two strict assumptions that I don't agree with. 1. "All killing is wrong" - I wouldn't agree with this. If someone was going to kill my wife and family, I wouldn't hesitate to kill the person to save my family. 2. "War is killing" - This is a very narrow view of war. In some cases, war saves more lives than it costs. Nazi Germany was killing many people before the war started. If Germany hadn't gone on the offensive, I believe the world would have had no choice but to attack Germany to stop the atrocities and save lives.
  • War is wrong, final. There's no need for killing to make it wronger than it already is.
    • Archie Bunker
      So how do you stop those who would make war upon you? I'm trying to understand the logic in your statement.
    • Linda Joy
      These are young people that don't even understand the reasons. They're just holding to an ideal that's not reality.
  • some people will agree with statement and therefore believe killing and war is wrong yet if there is a justified reason for going to war surely its in our best interests to protect each other and defend one another in time of crisis.
  • I'm sorry, I disagree with your statement. Not all killing is wrong, so not all war is wrong. I am certain that the U.S. was morally right to stand up to facism in WWII, protecting our own lives and saving countless innocents in the process. There are many examples of when it has been right to use military force abroad. Just open a history book and read.
  • War is not necessarily killing, and killing is not necessarily wrong. Before you make a judgement, or sweeping decisions on the morality of a subject, at least have some substance, logic, and thought behind your answer. Lets see some proper, structured, ethical reasoning for a change. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm http://www.richard-t-hull.com/publications/varieties.pdf
  • Not always, for many of the above reasons.
  • All killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. War doesn't always equal killing or murder , i.e. cold war, war of words, etc.
  • I'm not sure all killing is wrong. I'm a card-carrying pacifist but my commitment to non-violence is trumped by my common sense. It is clear however that I should try not to kill.
    • Archie Bunker
      Pacifism - a philosophy of non-violence, historically only practiced by those who rely on the killing and dying of others in defense of their privilege to practice that philosophy.
  • By that logical process, yes, war is wrong. Also looking from other perspectives, war is still wrong. Countless deaths for reasons that the people who die dont understand; countless individual perspectives and minds lost forever, never to be encountered again. War is wrong, it deprives the World of so much.
    • Archie Bunker
      But accomplishes much.
  • PLUR PEACE LOVE UNITY AND RESPECT war has two faces 1) greed, hate, power etc... 2) save women and children, recontruct a life, rebuild a country For example in World War two i think it was...what if the Americans had never gone in and saved the Jews and Jehovoh's Witnesses? What would have happened if the Nazii's had not been shot down? Would they have just been saved? Thats just an example...
  • Si vis pacum, para bellum What do you get if you have a peaceful country with no army? An Annexed country.
  • Your premise that 'all killing is wrong' is itself wrong, so your conclusion is also incorrect. Killing is neither right nor wrong , it just is. All life fights to survive, most cases it is one species over another but there is still killing and death involved. I will/would/have killed those that threaten me, my family, my community, and my country. Killing is natural and war is simply defense of one's way of life and is not wrong. It would be morally repugnant to not goto war to defend one's way of life, community, family, and one's self.
  • In general I say completely YES. But in a case of self-defence a war can be right. In order to stop people like Napoleon, Hitler and other war-lords, a country must be allowed to defend itself.
  • no war has its own laws and regulations.
  • I'm apparently late on this topic but agree with the majority that killing is not necessarily wrong under some circumstances.
  • The instructions given to Moses by God for making war on an enemy: Kill all the men, boys, and married women. Keep the young virgins for your own pleasure. (Numbers 31) That pretty much wipes out the idea of war and killing being wrong from a religious viewpoint, but you could maybe make the case that God was concerned about STDs.
  • Methinks there's something awry with your second premise. ;-)
  • War is rarely justified.
    • Archie Bunker
      What is justifiable is subjective.
  • Anyone who says war is wrong doesn't deserve liberty. They deserve to live under the tyranny of a Saddam Hussein or a Hitler. You remember don't you? The guys who slaughtered their own people... yeah that's what the world would be like without war.
    • bostjan64
      Saddam Hussein and Hitler rose to power because of war. Your argument makes no logical sense.
    • Linda Joy
      They were both stopped by war, you idiot! It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks logically.
  • Your definition is not globally acceptable as truth by everyone so the answer is no.
  • War is not simply "killing," kid. You're watching too many Hollywood movies. There are wars every country is engaged in along different lines. There are financial wars, legal wars, trade wars, academic wars etc. Only military wars are the ones people tend to get pissy about. But people starve to death because of trade wars and financial wars. Countries are held back for decades and populations die of disease and problems because of academic wars. etc. You need to get open your eyes to the world. and not simply concentrate on one point as you are.
  • Yep, war is wrong. That's not exactly philosophical heavyweight stuff but does that mean if another country chooses to take over your country you surrender because war is wrong? Who, in the middle of a war, doesn't think war is wrong?
  • Not all killing is wrong and not all war is wrong. That's a very narrow-minded and naive view of the world.
  • The prophecy at Isaiah 2:4 promises that there will come a time when we will beat swords into plowshares & spears into pruning shears, we will no longer learn war. According to the Bible, war is bad and It will be a thing of the past.
    • Archie Bunker
      So I'm guessing that's why God gave his archangels swords? So they can just turn them into plows? Then why not just give them plows?
  • All is fair in Love and War
  • In my Bible it says there will be wars and rumors of wars. 😓
  • Yes war is wrong, but war stems from ideas, ideas are given to the people by their leaders and then it is the people that fight because of those ideas. Take for example, if you read soldiers letters from World war II, soldiers in the UK fought for the "biggest threat to civilisation, the sovereignty of England and it's way of life and Christianity." However, when you look at Hitler's Last Appeal To Reason, he tells both his people and ours he wanted peace, but it was the Jewish Bankers, the British war mongering elite, and the Freemasons who wanted the war in order to make money and institute ideas, he called them war profiteers, hence German soldiers in their eyes were also fighting for the sovereignty of their country and their way of life and land, and sensed it was the UK etc that were the enemy. Soldiers on both sides are their to give their lives for their country no matter what, Sol diers, and the ideas given to them are from their leaders which helps spur them on. Looking at todays EU and United Nations, and both the UK and Germany who do you think won the war?
    • Linda Joy
      The Americans ended it!
    • Archie Bunker
      All of Europe would be speaking German if it wasn't for us. Not only that, many more millions would have been liquidated. Do you honestly think Hitler would have stopped with the Poles, Jews, & Gypsies?
    • Linda Joy
      I like the way she mentions everyone but those who ended it!
    • Creamcrackered
      Americans are thought to have only entered the war when Pearl Harbour was hit, (except for a few volunteers), America initially refused asylum to UK injured troops, and 80% of the American public voted against entering the war. When the US officially entered the war, (although documents now show that FDR had secret plans to bomb Japan first with volunteer fighters five months before Pearl Harbour) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8n4q5q1-U Germany was already on the back foot, the British killed more Germans than the US, but Russia killed several more Germans than the US and UK did put together (and not all Germans were Nazi). So stating that we would be German or that Americans ended the war, doesn't hold much sway with the me and many of my folk in the UK, for many of our soldiers fought were injured and lost their lives before the US came in, and it was Americas wealth of materials at this point, having not been in the war from the get go, that gave them the advantage "US Army Col. David Hackworth recalled an episode that encapsulates how Germans viewed American troops. As a young soldier, guarding a prisoner-of-war camp in 1946, he mockingly asked a German lieutenant captured at Salerno: “Well, if you’re so tough, if you’re all supermen, how come you’re here captured and I’m guarding you?” The German officer, who spoke perfect English, calmly replied: “Well, it’s like this: I was on this hill as a battery commander with six 88mm anti-tank guns, and the Americans kept sending tanks down this road. We kept knocking them out. Every time they sent a tank we knocked it out. Finally, we ran out of ammunition and the Americans didn’t run out of tanks.” This is what happens when a country which still has money and supplies enters the war, of course Britons were living on rations, and America left the war as the richest country. What so-called "won" the war was everyone's involvement and many brave soldiers from different countries fought during the world war including Americans. Archie I don't believe we would of ever been speaking German because it was never planned to end that way. So my question as to who won the war considering these countries ie Germany and UK were fighting for sovereignty (which was why I hadn't included America in my answer) was no one, because the real plan was the inception of the United Nations (who's original purpose was to exist in case a war with America would ever arise), was unbeknownst to us a globalized plan from its inception, we were never going to be democracies and no civilians win in war.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy