Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shane
Diplomatic Measures should never be abbandoned but if negotiations are going nowhere before any combat has taken place then you shouldn't hold back a military strike for to long (as long as the threat is serious and imminent).
|
Apologies in advance Shane, but you didn't really say anything here.
Basically, you feel that we shouldn't stop diplomatic approaches but eventually we should go to war (which tends to stop diplomatic approaches) if the threat is "serious or imminent".
If the threat is serious (say, a nation with an irrational or unstable leader is building nuclear weapons), then you're saying that we shouldn't hold back "too long" (I presume too long would be if that nation actually used that nuclear weapon, personally I think that would be WAY too long).
Alternatively, if the threat is imminent (say, an increase in severity or frequency of attacks on our citizens or allies), then you're saying that we shouldn't hold back "too long" (I presume too long here would be when the other nation declared war on us first (e.g. Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941)).
From your post, I can gather that you at least find war acceptable in certain circumstances. What are they? Are there issues that you wouldn't find war an acceptable solution for? For example, if a tyrant is trying to kill off citizens of his nation because they follow a certain religion or have a certain ethnicity, but that tyrant posed no threat to your country, would you think it worth going to war just to protect those people?
It is easy to say if someone is threating you or attacking you directly that you should defend yourself. It is harder to defend those who need your help when there's no compelling reason, other than basic humanity, to do so. Would you support warfare for this purpose?
-- Jeff
ps Thanks for at least posting.