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.
@JimboSaturn hmm well guess we should have let Hitler go through with his final solution then? War can be backed by just causes. And history is filled with justified uses of war.
@Ozuye502 When you look back at the causes of war, you see WWII was a result of WWI, which was the result of previous Europen conflicts etc.. I would make more sense to break the cycle of war as much as possible because it is very costly.
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."
I’d say generally that would be the case but sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
SW-User
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.
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."
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.
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.
@Peaceandnamaste Getting rid of OUR guns means that only the criminals will have them. Innocent lives will be EFFED. Forever. We are PREY right NOW. George Soros is paying billions to elect crooked District Attorneys who WILL NOT PROSECUTE THESE CRIMINALS. They get caught, and go right back out on the streets to kill and stab and maim innocent people. Our guns, in responsible hands, are our only hope for the defense of our homes.