Would you want to have an #ANTIWAR government... What do you think that would look like?

  • Yes I would want that but I don’t think it’s possible.
    Vote A
  • No I would not want that and it’s not possible anyhow.
    Vote B
  • Yes I want that - lets get to work !!
    Vote C
  • No I don’t think you can govern without War.
    Vote D
  • I don’t care, Boring..
    Vote E
  • I’m not sure I have to think it over..
    Vote F
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
314

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

314
  • Yes, the current wars (& prospective wars being setup and) funded by Washington for the guaranteed mass-profits of the weapons-manufacturers aren’t even related to the September 11 attacks anymore, when defeating the 9/11 PERPETRATORS was the ONLY authorization given by Congress in 2001, but Congress has taken the decades’ long usurpation of power over so lightly due to the military-grade weapon-manufacturing plants scattered in their districts.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't think many people want a government that doesn't allow the country to defend itself if directly invaded. A few do, but I certainly wouldn't support that.

    So then the question becomes whether the military should intervene in foreign conflicts.

    I'm not 100% opposed to that. But it needs to be done with a lot of care and understanding it almost never will go anywhere near as well as planned.

    2|0
    0|0
  • Unfortunately

    Would you want to have an #ANTIWAR government... What do you think that would look like?

    0|2
    0|0
  • I oppose unnecessary war but I support defending the country. As for getting involved in helping other countries, that's ultimately up to men, considering combat is men's responsibility (Neh 4:14; Num 1). In any case, I oppose war if it's not for a good purpose (protecting human rights).

    0|0
    0|0
  • I want that, but I don't think it's possible.. Especially in the U. S... They give all that power, and resource to the military.. There ain't no way this country could be anti-war at the moment at least..

    0|0
    0|0
  • A pacifist government only works if very specific criteria are in play:

    1. Your own country can't have any natural resources worth fighting over. Your entire economy has to be dependent on foreign tourism and importing raw materials.

    2. Since you're not self-sufficient, then you have to have amicable foreign relations, especially with your neighbors since any one of them could effectively kick your ass at the flip of a switch.

    3. Assuming foreign powers aren't a problem, then everything else in your country better be running like a well greased machine or else the citizens will rise up, so hopefully your police are exceptionally good at their job.

    So in short, no global power can or will ever be what you're describing, and this is only feasible for a smaller country with little to no value beyond tourism.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Haven't thought about that much, requires discussion. It would look like a takeover target eventually. Military is threat against someone else taking power.

    I would support better standards from that viewpoint, that is..."we apply these principles (whatever they are) to decision for war." Iraq was... just bad... bad... an example what not to do.

    We are at war now... financially at minimum. Military, currency are weapons to maintain the order and power, right or wrong. Try telling your fellow students that there will be no chicken in the cafe, and other foods are limited... because of disagreements w other govts workers that feed us. We'll see how passive they are...

    0|0
    0|0
  • I want a modest national defense that only responds when foreign militaries initiate force against the U. S. and whose operations never leave our borders physically or virtually.

    I consider such a national defense to be "antiwar", and I consider myself to be "antiwar", but I don't know if that necessarily fits with your definition. I think the only justified use of force is whatever amount is needed to cease another use of force that has already been initied--this belief extends to the way a national defense should operate.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Well it would be nice, it is not possible because there does come times when you have to make a stand and fight.

    1|0
    0|0
  • You are missing my option. I don't want that, and yes it is possible. Simultaneously, I hate war

    0|0
    0|0
    • 2 h ago

      If it's possible, why don't you want it?

    • Show All
    • 2 h ago

      Makes sense

    • 2 h ago

      That's why I believe the best way to prevent war is to be ready for it

  • Who is willing to sacrifice to stand for freedom? When you see someone being rapped do you do nothing because you don’t like violence? If you see someone on their front lawn being beaten up and someone have a gun to their head do you do nothing because you don’t like violence? In the same way when we see countries killing its citizens because those citizens have a different religion than the ones doing the killing do you do nothing because you don’t like violence? When we see one country attack another because they want to oil that country has, do you do nothing because you don’t like violence? So when are you willing to sacrifice to stand for freedom?

    0|0
    0|0
  • War can be justified , but going to war to cover a declining economy is wrong

    0|2
    1|0
  • I'm not much of a politician but a peaceful country is better than a country at war

    0|1
    0|0
  • No, because other countries would take advantage of that.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I want more war

    0|0
    0|0
  • Governments make lots of money out of having wars

    1|0
    0|0
  • There's only one anti-war candidate and thats serving national guard officer and congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

    0|1
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...