Is war effective? If so, under what circumstances should war be instituted? How is it effective?

I believe that most wars result from domestic inequities--food, money, resources, housing, degraded environment etc.

War and inequity are complex.

I believe that war is a quick "solution" that isn't "effective" because it doesn't address these inequities (most of the time warfare worsens them). Simply put, war doesn't solve the problems that lead to inequity. If we spent more time thinking about equity around the world and making strides in our lifestyles to balance the inequities (from working within the capitalism system and supporting fair trade to supporting local farmers...) we might begin to address the root of the problem. That would be more effective and mostly we know this. It's all just very hard to do for most people.

You only said that war is ineffective. Do you think there is any benefit at all that comes from war?

"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude

I think a question that should be raised is what is meant by effective. There are problems that war can solve. There are problems where war may be the best solution. War, therefore, can be effective for attaining an end. War itself, however, I think is inherently ineffective because it is essentially and unavoidably a wasteful enterprise.

"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson

I put "War is effective in certain situations" because in self defense or other defense sometimes its the only thing you can actually do before any talks or fixes can happen. As in the case of dictator terrorist and such that would rather shoot you then talk about anything other then how to pursue their agenda their way. My example would be Hitler.

I guess if one caught the problem before it got that out of hand that would be pretty good. Then we start talking finance and I get all jumbled in my head....

War is about stregth and pain and bully-ness, I am sure their are high minded ways to fix problems then bickering and violence.

There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin

It was a war economy that helped us get out of the Great Depression....

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

in that sense, I have to wait until I am out of the state of florida

Is Muslim another subset or part of being Black ? I want to go home where they don't look at me as if I am an alien from outer space...come to destroy, to torture their planet.
Wan

I almost voted that "war is never effective," but then I realized that what I was really thinking was "war is never good. There is a difference between something being good and effective. So, I think that wars can certainly get your objectives achieved, but I think there are almost always better ways of achieving them.

Assuming the word effective to mean, "achieving the desired ends," then there are certainly times where War is an effective means and certianly times where it is just as ineffective.

Sometimes, the poll questions are improperly worded. What are we defining as "war?" When two nations exercise violence against one another? Loosely defined, war is simply the use of violence by one group against another group. Even then, the word "war" has been given to several non-violent occasions in history. I merely point this out.

-acertainsaint-

As taught in sociology, change is always controversial. Why? Because there's always going to be someone who loses. War is the same way - though an eventual peace may be obtained, the losers will always be the victims (especially innocent civilians.)

If we're using the standard that "effective" means "achieving [someone's] desired ends" then yes, I think that war is sometimes effective. Not always, of course, because I don't think violence should be a country's only step in negotiating with other countries.

Some of you have made some good points, and clarifying definitions of war, and what is effective is good. Also, pointing out that some people might have reason to think it has had desired outcomes is good.

I look at the world and I am so confused by the fact that people, specifically politicians and world leaders, still think that the best way to solve conflicts is through violence. Whoever kills the most wins. I wondered when I was a child why we didn't just have the leaders fight a duel, and whoever wins claims that country? Then only one would have to die instead of thousands.

I know it is not that simple. But I think we have to start shifting the way we think about global and international conflict.

I wish that the United Nations and the Geneva Convention were bolstered so that it would be considered international offense to use violence as a means of problem solving, and that anyone who does so would be arrested, investigated and prosecuted the way a criminal is.

I do not think that it is effective to fight terrorism, for example, with war. All that does is incite the hate and bolster the passion of the terrorists. Instead of occupying countries we should be hunting down the terrorists and imprisoning them.
I know I have an inclination to be naive, and that is why I asked for this poll, in case people of more practical understanding had more insight.

"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude

Trying to grasp what is going on in Gaza. Jees, Obama has his hands full.

From what I can gather, The Hamas attacked Israel. The Hamas are a radical militant group. Israel is pissed and has responded with war on Palestine, killing innocent civilians. It hopes to disable the Hamas.

The UN is meeting, seeking ways to stop the violence. Israel says it won't back down, and will not likely respond to a cease fire order from the UN, unless the Hamas also ceases fire at the exact same time.

The Hamas are holding sick and injured people trying to leave the Gaza strip hostage, not letting them pass into Egypt unless Egypt opens up its borders for missile trade.

I do not know much more than that except that there is a long history of resentment, and Israel is not trusting that there can be a non violent solution. What will be the outcome?

I only hope that the UN will keep working and that Israel will not be supported in its actions. There cannot be a diplomatic solution while at the same time using war. Negotiations under fire? How is that possible?

What is the answer? I don't know, but that is why I think that there needs to be communication and that the moderate Arab leaders and countries need to be a strong voice in this conference.

I wish there was a way to just hold a conference, and elect the most qualified members of the moderate countries to to negotiate with each other on how to weed out such militant groups.

If Egypt opens its borders, we will definitely see a rise in the strength of these militant groups.

The Hamas did not get this far without being enabled. They were enabled by people who responded to their fear tactics. Israel is reacting in fear, and in seeking revenge. Neither of those things work to forge peace.

This is just my humble assessment. Feel free to disagree.

"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude

War is effective when oppressed peoples have no other means of getting the world to realize their situation.

--Mike

As long as we will have boarders in this world, wars will continue to erupt.

People need to stop that nonsense about culture, religion and false pride of being part of “IT” on a worldly scale!

All this blow(n) up ego attitude might someday explode in one’s own face!

War sucks, get WWise instead...adding an other one!