Why if it's just war on terrioism why are we with war with a whole country?
112870
You asked a very good question. Going to war with Iraq would have made some sense if Iraq had sponsored those who attacked us, or if there was clear evidence that Iraq was planning to attack us in the near future. Unfortunately, neither of these scenarios were true, and there is much testimony from insiders that the administration knew these justifications were untrue. \nConveniently forgotten is the fact that nuclear inspectors were doing their job, and in fact they did get it right. The administration had fun belittling the inspectors, but we were the ones who had it very wrong. Iraq simply was no threat to attack us, and it can even be argued that Iraq served as a buffer against more extreme regimes, such as Iran.\nIraq did not have the equipment nor the WMDs to attack us, even if they wanted to, nor did they have any real connections with Al Queda. \nA genuine war on terrorism would have continued an aggressive search for Osama bin Laden (what happened to Bush's promise to capture him?). Such a war might better have been called a campaign, and would include limited military and maximum political activity to reduce terrorism. Unfortunately, our war on Iraq has by any standards increased the amount of terrorism, and increased the number of people who really do want to see our downfall.\nEven though Sadam was a thorn in our side, he was effectively contained. His removal was supposed to bring peace and democracy, but of course we see that it has not. \nHopefully our next war will be justifiable and with clear plans for long-term success, rather than manipulated and largely unplanned for the long run.
623477
In no way war is life.We should take all the available step to avoid any sort of war.b'cozwar is cause of immense destruction.But when war becomes inevitable then we should not  take a back seat and come up to protect our right.
473463
I don't believe in wars period, why can't we all just get along!!!
635172
Well, I guess in a way if youre fighting war than that means youre starting a war against war, which means you are already contradicting yourself. The point im trying to make is it doesnt really matter what context it is in, it takes a war to start yet another.\n\nI applaud you for asking this question, but I am a lil confused as to why you did it since your ideology seems so thrown together and a little clumsy.\n\nI dont believe evil has a face. Its only a word we've constructed to seperate each other. But even if it did, are you saying that war exists because of "evil"? If thats true, than why do you feel that saying "war is wrong" is any different than saying that it is necessary?\n\nO i get it, we call that atitude nihilism - a belief that there is no point in caring because to care would mean that you think it is possible to change. But dont you think that in already saying it is impossible to change than you have already disqualified yourself from ever changing anything in the first place? \nDoesnt that whole idea go back to the "takes a war to start one" thing?
538917
I don't understand what you're talking about,  being as our country is at war.  Men and women are losing their lives daily.  Who's running?\n\nI've never been in the position to go to war.  I DO defend families on the homefront,  by speaking out and taking action against abuse and neglect.  Many people run from this, saying it's not their "place".  I agree with you, in this sense, that Americans do not defend their country and families the way they should.\n\nI also agree that Americans have lost their pride - it's turned to arrogance and ignorance.  We're heading for more wars if we don't change - in a hurry.
202428
The same as the "purpose" of all wars--to produce peace...to end war. Sound pretty weird? I think that may be true. \nWar doesn't end war. It puts people's bodies in the ground.\nPeace is achieved by negotiation, respect and giving up the idea of making money from someone else's misery. Also, losing the egocentric idea that one country is entitled to what another country has or does.\nI think if you look closely enough you will see that most wars are either lining some-"one"s pockets or the result of rigid self-righteousness. \nCan we have peace? That's the million dollar question. Only if one to one we can get along. There's your mission in life.
714608
The only thing this present government can do is to act in violence and to be able to control another country. And maybe OIL HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't care about their culture, they just care about themselves. Present admin., keeps on yelling -" The Demo's will raise our taxes.' Then tell me this - The reason why taxes will be raised is that we (demo) will have to pay for Georgies little war. One dime isn't coming out of their pockets you can count on that.
258718
I think war is a very important part of our lives and especially the economy. The only reason for patriotism and the desire for peace comes from war, hate, and killing. The Second World War jolted America from the Great Depression of the 30's to the industrial wonders of the 40's and 50's. If there was no war, there would be no democracy because arguing is a verbal war, and pits brothers against one another. Some say the only way to have complete world peace is to be run under either a communist government or monarchy. But others would then get restless and brew up another war. As long as there is life, there can be no such thing as world peace, it is in all creatures nature to fight others either different or similar for survival and power. So there is really no reason for all the fuss about world peace. It isn't going to happen until all life is destoyed. The term pacifist then, according to nature, means "fool bent of the destucrtion of all life". Not exactly what they profess, is it?
398504
War is when a country or a group of people within a country fight against one another with weapons. There are numerous reasons for war. Wars have been fought for independence, to expand land, because of disputes, to protect a country's independence and/or land, to gain resources, because of alliances, etc.
438678
All you have to do is look around the world and you'll have ur answer. You've got geneocide, civil wars, terrorists, more countries trying to build nuclear weapons, and some countries that have been at war for hundred of years. I wish there would be no war, but there will always be some crazy fool. With there own idea of how people should live there lives, and of course couldn't have a war without the mindless followers.
651932
It is a million dollar question.No one wants war. Also those who are itching to wage a war want the war to be waged in some other country but not in their country. But remember no country can rule over any other country for long.The soldiers want to go back to enjoy life with their family and not daily risk their life at a far off land.\nSince man power is limited with super powers they would not like to sacrifice their army but then fight from the sky.\nUltimately what theyt would get is only burial grounds.\nMay be CALM would prevail at that stage.There will be no more enemies to fight with.nor any friends to live with
911216
That's an excellent question!  I think a lot of it has to do with the perception our elected officials portray.  Universally, I believe that most people are good at heart and want nothing more than world peace.  No one really wants war and distruction.  \n\nUnfortunately, most of it comes down to politics and greed.  You know the grass is always greener...etc.  They want what we have, we want what they have and some politicians will stop at nothing to get it.  In the wake of that goal, the people suffer as a result.  It is sad, but perhaps more people will awake to the realization that this is not how they want their world to be, and they will take a stand and tell the politicians to go take a hike.  If more people, like yourself ask the question, perhaps as a whole we can come up with a solution.\n\nPersonally, I think wars should be fought with marshmallow shooters, crayons and coloring books!  Who could resist!!
548343
Dear Friend,\n\nThat's a very interesting question.  \n\nPart of the problem is that the peoples of different nations believe many different things.  The religions of one nation condemn the religions of their neighbors.  The way of life in Nation A can be repugnant to everyone in Nation B.  As long as ideas are at war, people will be at war.\n\nIn addition to the culture clash, there's the general sense of people everywhere that political control should be local.  The feeling is that decisions concerning our lives shouldn't be made by people "over there" who don't have the sense of how our day to day life progresses.  \n\nLastly, there's a philosophical shift that we'd have to make between being a citizen of our nation and a citizen of the world.  It's in the works -- witness the EU -- but slowly, and with much resistance.  And that's normal.  Big changes take time.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
1176064
It's true, it's DAMN true. You can fight for peace, but only if there is no peace to begin with. If they were fighting in Danfur to get rid of the Janjaweed, then I'd think to consider it fighting for peace. But this war, I don't agree with.\n\nEDIT:\nIt's a shame that so many people (including Turbowedgie) want to compare this to the Great War. Let's use realistic lingo, such as "Don't you think we would have won Nam if it hadn't been for those un-American jackasses that wanted us out? What's another life or two? Just keep on napalmin' and they'd surrender, eventually."
560785
Because our people are being led by a war-monger. We do not want to bother anyone but our greedy leaders just cannot keep their noses out of others business. They say they will do good for our nation when trying to get elected but, when they win they become whores to big business. I am an average American and all I want is to live in peace.
667849
nobody wins in war...that is a fact... all lives are damaged, not only physically, but mostly emotionally, psychologically and spiritually...why the question of war between countries? it is the thought of a person who loves war, who is supposed to embrace peace at all times...please, let us put a stop to this ill-thoughts. instead, spread the word...peace unto you, brother...
1176675
I don't know, as I haven't read the book of fiction upon which your question is founded. War on terror? If you are referencing Iraq, you are stupid. But no matter. The war is good for the country in the long run. Sends stupid angry white men, the backbone of the Republican party, to early retirement from voting. Supporting the war is treasonous, knowing what we now know. Shame on the spineless and soulless misanthropes in charge of our affairs