War as an option for solving international disputes

[Brad]

If we were to take a look back on history, a lot of the outcomes of disputes amongst countries have always resulted in war. We, as a population of the world, lose thousands of people due to the lack of agreeance from the leaders of two countries, or in some cases a few countries.
With 2018 half way through and seeing what is going on in the world even today; Should war be an option for solving international disputes?

What are your thoughts?

[-:Undertaker:-]

War is a consequence of when politics breaks down.

Often there's no avoiding war and war itself can lead to progress. Had it not been for war then many of the great nations of the world would not exist and all that have come with those nations in terms of science/discovery/economics/culture - Britain, America, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy and so on. For example, had it not been for war and division coming from the Ottoman Empire, the nations of Europe would never have navigated the globe looking for other trading routes/establishing empires and the world would look very different.

The best example of a 'good' war I can think of and which is relevant to all of us today is the English Civil War which in the short term was bad with a republican dictatorship, but in the longer term resulted in the beginning of a constitutional monarchy in the kingdoms of England and Scotland and would then go on to pave the way for the Union of the Crowns, creating the Kingdom of Great Britain.

That's an example of a war which brought about an increase in liberties/freedom and helped avoid the nasty revolutions that swept many European nations throughout the 1800s and early 1900s because of their lack of successful reforms earlier like Britain.

[TinyFroggy]

Should war be an option for solving international disputes?

It should never be an option to solve the disputes. The impacts are too huge for us to handle physically and mentally and to both, the citizens and the governments. War only strips our humanity and shows nothing but arrogant and greedy politicians that plays around with their citizens as if they are pawns to be sacrificed. As if human life does not matter. As if we are worth less than what we are.

But then, I do agree with the fact that it can solve the disputes. Yes, they do that. Because war works by force. Meaning more power in a lesser time in comparison to doing deals and agreement. But still, to be an option to solve dispute by harming and endangering humans? Well, that is just unthinkable.

[ajs406]

Oh yes it should be an option, i would love for NATO to finally invade Turkey and sort them out, prevent them from doing stupid stuff before they actually do it. If we had gone to war with Germany in the 1930s instead of trying to solve it diplomatically a lot of lives could have been saved. However i am a bit biased, i just want a war to break out because peace time is boring and also need to bring down the population a bit.

[TinyFroggy]

If the debate is whether a war would be not boring and bring down the population a bit, I would totally agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not. XD

[Its.Dino]

Only contributing to this discussion with one point and one point only:

"War is a rich man's game and a poor man's fight!"

[-:Undertaker:-]

Those who are against war, what do you propose in it's place when politics/diplomacy breaks down?

It's a part of nature.

[Ozad]

Bare knuckle fighting between the idiots that are disagreeing over some messed up politics in the first place.

[scatterbox]

It's difficult- without war's we wouldn't have had so many advances in medical technology as we have.