Non-violence and pacifism is better than war and violence, agree or disagree?

Agree. Whenever possible, compromise, understanding and equitability should be the bedrock of any foundation. Too many think 'choosing peace' means not resisting. In fact, it begins much earlier in the prevention of animosity and finding solutions without violence.

In the real worked, this isn't always possible, and invading forces have been fought back over mankind's history. But largely, war is about cash, resources and power. The US hasn't fought in a war or operation that directly threatened the US since WWII, and we've been at way without break since then.

Peace over war? Possible nearly 100% of the time, but man's ego won't allow it.

No. Pacifism is useless against the enemy when the enemy is willing to use violence. Even MLK stock-pilled guns in case things got violent.
Also, Ghandi never actually accomplished anything. The media made him a hero, when really his hunger strikes didn't actually contribute to change.

Non violence and pacifism are very nice...until a bunch of a-holes decide to come in and shoot your non violent rear end...or chop off your head with a machete, or kidnap your family, or launch a nuclear bomb in your direction.

Then you will be very violently dead, and you will just have to sit there and take it.

The civil rights movement was not really passed until major rioting. Violence has its place.

War is a colossal waste of life, resources, and time; it is complete failure.

In a perfect world it does however violence exists to separate the good and evil.
In the words of a wiser man then myself
"It is better to be a peaceful man than a harmless man. Because a peaceful man knows the appropriate use and how to respond to violence. A harmless man is
essentially useless."
Or simply put "you give peace and love a chance I'll cover you for when it fails."

In an ideal world sure but this is a broken and corrupt world so unfortunately it really depends upon what you're going to war for. Protection of civilians is honourable and necessary.

Agree. I could quote MLK all day on achieving goals through nonviolent means. My favorite is "In spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace."

This question should be directed at the BLM - as they approve violence

I’d say generally that would be the case but sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

It's a nice idea, but unfortunately as long as there are evil men in this world, war will be necessary.

If you can negotiate and win then you don't have to fight but sometimes you have to fight. We can't have freedom without MEN willing to DIE for their beliefs and this is personal CHOICE which is always above talk of the greater good or collective national security etc.

Of course but we live on planet earth and humans are not perfect.

I am sure the individuals you cited had their own frailties and were far from perfect.

The war with Eurasia must never end..
1x extra bit of chocolate rations if you just shush and go along with it…

Twitter won't actually let the left talk. Anti war is the silent majority.

I agree that it is good whenever possible to make peace and love. To prevent violence before it happens.

However when it becomes impossible and lives are in danger, I say fight! And fight hard!

Disagree only based on context. If its black and white then war is the only answer if if you or someone you know is being persecuted.

A bit, but there's a lot of coercion through money too, and it often creates systems that can only be overthrown with violence

Democracy would make non violent conflict resolution a choice.
We're at war.

Of course peace is always preferable.

always agree

I agree.

If you can get it