War is generally considered an aggressive and negative act. So when someone wages war "in the name of peace," do you consider that aggressive and punishable behavior, or noble and for a righteous cause?

Awww, come on! It's not a debate or discussion unless you explain why!

Good. Now I just wish other people would comment. Everyone's eager to debate things that are "current" but lawmakers will procrastinate as long as possible (the abortion thread) but no one wants to debate something happening right now, in real time, that's moving quickly.

I couldn't be more disappointed.

Peace. I mean come on. for instaince, if someone comes up to up and just starts slapping you what do you do. Just take it. No you fight back until that person leaves you alone. And if they keep coming back everyday than you fight everyday.

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

I remember when I was a kid, I asked my dad why peacemakers carried big ass guns. It boggled my mind.

It's aggressive.

Is slapping the equivalent of killing? We need to make two distinctions here, violence vs. killing. You can be beat up and not dead, but if you're dead, then you're simply talking to Jesus.

However, I believe it is impossible to boil down conflicts to peace vs. violence. Each conflict or war needs to be the source of great discussion.

Historically, war will always happen, and it will always be fought for the wrong reasons. The wrong people will benefit, and the wrong people will win. However, the benefit of the people may be at stake, and a war may be better for people on the whole than not fighting.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that conflicts need to be understood fully before killing commences. I'm against the Iraq war in that sense, because it was a rash move by the prez.

Why do such issues need to be made so black and white!?

We need peace son fo real fo real. Everything is so hectic. <3 man back to da 70's.

Sometimes war is necessary to bring forth future peace. Sometimes in the long run a few lives have to be sacraficed in the here and now to prevent massive loss in the future

Wars should be fought over a series of chess games!

You can't spread peace and freedom from the barrel of a gun.

See sig., 2nd clause.

No its not it usually causes future resentment in people. So does that mean I could kill you if it meant that I would prevent a massive loss in the future.

Consider the following: All attackers see themselves as defenders.

Everyone is defending something – their way of life, their organization, their safety, their resources. While one group may label another group as a provocateur, as an attacker, the attacker will not see themselves that way. They will see themselves as pushed against a wall, attacking out of defense.

Many organizations (nations, for example) will claim that they only use force for defense. Yet that is all there ever is – defense, and some other group will view their actions as offensive. The only reason people resort to force is out of a need for survival – it is all defense. Even those groups seeking to build empires, who attack to absorb, do so out of needs for increasing resources – survival of their current form.

Any defensive weapon can be used offensively. If you have an excellent shield, for example, which can deflect all manner of bullets and bombs, it enables you to act with impunity. You can act unilaterally, stepping on others' toes, safe in the knowledge that they cannot attack you in response (or as they would put it, they cannot defend themselves against you).

This is not to say that one never has good cause to attack. You may attack as a means of preventing further attacks, for example, against an opponent who refuses to honor your sovereignty. This should be done with deep honesty, however, and with the understanding that your opponent views their actions as defensive and yours as offensive. Otherwise, violence becomes the default language. This is increasingly the case. One may imagine that people are only using violence as a last resort, but increasingly violence is becoming the language of choice. Evidence of a primitive culture and people.

Nations behaving like children - they still have not learned to settle their differences without violence.

War is never "about peace".

Anyone can claim that the war they initiate is intended to "bring peace to ...". It is never the case. If anyone has an example that refutes this please do post it.

I would agree with that. Peace cannot be achieved through war or any physical means. It can only be achieved through growth of compassion and an awareness of unity - a spiritual solution, IOW. Generally war creates a greater sense of division - less peace.

However, I would say that war can be used to stop abuse. WWII is an example of that - the Allies banded together to stop Hitler's fascism. Not for peace, but for survival. Had the world been more evolved (aka peaceful), it would have put out the fire that became WWII long before it became a raging inferno. Genuinely peaceful people and nations know how to resolve problems without violence, and understand the mutual value of doing so. We aren't there yet.