| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| War | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 11 2005, 03:56 PM (234 Views) | |
| Simon | Jun 11 2005, 03:56 PM Post #1 |
![]()
bleh..
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, I'm opening a debate on this. Is war ever a good option? And any other related issues, post here. Since I am very much interested in WW2 this is a subject familar to me. And learning from histroy is the way to avoid future mistakes IMO, this is reflected in my following view on war. My honest opinion is it's never a good solution, but its exactly that, a solution. Take the start of WW2 for example. Chambalian British PM at the time agrees with many peoples opinions that war is a terrible thing and should never be used. He implementes an appeasement policy and Hitler gets away with building up his forces. Then we must go to war. Whatever way could we have done? Watched as France, Poland, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and many other countries were subjected to terror. Maybe send a diplomat to ask Mr Hitler nicely to retreat back to Germany and give up all the glorious land he's taken back to the country he's just easily invaded? Oh, and on a side note ask Hitler to give up his leadership of the reich and optionally kill himself.[/sarcasm]. Thats my argument, Idont like war. But i dont agree with some people that say its never the best option. Your thoughts? |
![]() |
|
| Glitch | Jun 11 2005, 04:04 PM Post #2 |
|
Blasphemer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When diplomacy fails, war is sometimes necessary to solve problems. However, it shouldn't be something to be taken lightly, and should be avoided at all costs if possible. |
![]() |
|
| DennisP | Jun 11 2005, 04:13 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
War is often necessary. As Simon said, (No pun intended), WWII could have been much smaller, possibly even avoided if Chamberlain had faced the problem instead of trying to appease Hitler. |
![]() |
|
| doug05257 | Jun 11 2005, 04:47 PM Post #4 |
|
The Burger King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
WW2 could have easily been prevented; yes. War is a last resort option; however, in some cases it must be used preemptively. |
![]() |
|
| souljax | Jun 11 2005, 04:54 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
nah eff wars hitler just liked to play games, just cause he never had chances to play games in his childhood ROFL but eff him war is just a waste of time and waste of deaths, it's bad look at dr martin luther king jr or ghandi (however you spell it, i forgot, sorry) solving problems peacefully is BEST opinion, war is just death and bad! And there will be never WWIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Hopefully, of course) |
![]() |
|
| Maiz | Jun 11 2005, 04:56 PM Post #6 |
|
Lord of all things corn.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I must agree that war should always be a last resort but as Doug said, some people jump to war too early. Yes, WW2, could've easily been prevented but because of the hesitation war was necessary. As of the recent events in Iraq, war was not necessary. There could've been easier and more peaceful ways to deal with it. Now a days people talk about war like it's an everday thing and we shouldn't. It should be taken more seriously. |
![]() |
|
| Simon | Jun 11 2005, 04:58 PM Post #7 |
![]()
bleh..
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay. I dont want many more WW2 related posts, as i was just using that as an example. But i will reply to that off topic. WW2 could only have been prevented in long term And thats if we wouldnt hjave destroyed germany in the treaty of versailles and making them turn to hitler in desperation. Short term...a madman in the office of a country. How else would we have got him out? He would have still invaded. The only way to have avoided it IMO would have been to accept occupation. And we are British ![]()
That doesnt really sound like an armistice does it? Anyway, end of the WW2 like discussion unless your using it to back up your argument
|
![]() |
|
| Locke | Jun 11 2005, 06:26 PM Post #8 |
|
That one guy
|
I agree with Glitch. Also, the classic phrase of "Freedom isn't free" can be applied here. |
![]() |
|
| Websurfer | Jun 11 2005, 06:28 PM Post #9 |
|
Also known as Myr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think sometimes it's best to use to set examples and whatnot. More importantly, I believe its the ONLY thing keeping us from overpopulating our world, without war, not as many peopel would die, and our race would get wiped off the Earth even quicker. |
![]() |
|
| Ross | Jun 11 2005, 06:35 PM Post #10 |
|
Inspire
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Being conservative, I get a lot of junk about how I "like war." Well...no one likes war. I support the current war but I don't "like war." I agree with Glitch, it is necessary in some situations but it shouldn't be the quick solution to problems. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:51 AM Jul 11
|




![]](http://b1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)






4:51 AM Jul 11