Do you believe war should be used as an option when trying to solve international disputes?

  • War is last option.

    I support this statement. War is to solve problem. War should be necessary to solve the disputes. War is
    As a final resort. It is been used to find international
    Problems. It is a rare circumstances. Talks and bargaining don't hurt anyone. War is the only method to solve the conflicts.

  • Yes, but war should be used only in very rare circumstances.

    I believe that a full-out war should only take place when all other options have been tried and failed. Or, as in the case of World War II, when we receive a direct threat. During World War II, the U.S. wished to remain somewhat neutral, but they were pulled into the war after Pearl Harbor was bombed. There are other things that can be tried first, such as trade embargoes and targeted missile strikes. But in very rare circumstances, it does seem that war is the only way to resolve conflicts.

  • War is the Final Option

    War is an undesirable outcome that is sometimes necessary to solve disputes. If all diplomatic and economic actions have failed in a serious international dispute, war may be necessary. War is the final option for nations that cannot be swayed through non-violent means. Unfortunately, some leaders only understand force and are not willing to negotiate settlements in a peaceful manner.

  • War is good as a last resort.

    War should be used as an option when trying to solve international disputes, but as a last resort. This is because talks and bargaining do not hurt anyone and they bring more people to the table and help improve relations. War often results in people dying, both military and civilian.

  • In certain cases

    War is far too quickly launched today since the vast majority of people in the US are completely removed from the realities of the situation and how awful it can get. Still, there are serious cases such as genocide that really do merit military action, when no other option is possible.

  • Thanks for the

    Thanks brother and sister are you still have the day of the day of the most recent call last file for the use of this email and delete this communication is intended only I could do the needful and confirm I have to do this for the first two chapters and I will be in touch

  • Never should there be war

    As war destroy lots nature and its has been stated that war has taken over many lives as in injuring people or by killing them. Such as in the cold war no one was harmed but there was a threat which had frightened so many people. The matter was resolved and there was no gun shots or bombing.

  • Argument in braille, sorry.

    . ..... . .. ..... . .. ..... . .. ..... . .. .... . ... ........ ... . ... . . . . . . ... .... .. .......... . . . . . .... . . .... . . ...... . . . .... . . ... . ... .

  • No their various ways to solve international disputes

    War only leads to bloodshed their can be various ways to solve these disputes giving each others rights some meetings can also be held between great leaders of each countries which can anyway lead to a solution because no one gets up until they come up with a solution ,on the contrary war leads to human extinction

  • No, war should be an absolute last resort.

    Countries should agree on a set of steps to be taken to address international disputes, with the first step being the election of an unbiased arbiter. Our world needs to move away from relying on war as a ready solution to problems. Today's weapons are far too sophisticated and lethal. War in today's world has a whole new meaning from what it was a hundred years ago. War should be the absolute last resort, when all else has failed.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.