Until the advent of World War One - the civilian population was largely left unscathed. However, the massive German Zeppelins were unleashed against innocent English towns. The British in 1915 had no defence against these monsters. But by c1916 they did and began shooting them out of the skies over Britain.
War becomes justified when the alternatives are worse than the war. An example of this was Iraq in 2003. Despite the none stop anti war propaganda, they have still not convinced informed people that removing Saddam was worse than leaving Mr Hussain in power. For some inexplicable reason, Saddam became convinced that he could attack neighbouring countries, 'flip his finger' at the U.S.A. and U.N. he did this for over to decades, leaving a trail of death and destruction behind him. Can anyone ever make the case that leaving Saddam in power in power would see an Iraq today better than it is at the moment? true the nation has crisis, but never on the scale it had during Saddams time in power. Try telling the 1.000.000. families in Iran that lost sons in the 1980s war against Saddam that it was wrong to remove him power, try telling the people of Kuwait whose homes were destroyed and looted that Saddam was a 'reasonable' dictator.
Saddam was not a monster, he was a leader with too much freedom, too much wealth, too much power. the U.S. Authorities removed him from using that power. The had to use 'war' to remove him.
Watch Tour of Duty season 3 episode 17
Everything will be crystal clear.
It is two sides loss so war is not correct while peace is most advantages like to war. Click this site: http://goo.gl/0RX1oC
You really have to ask....! Try death and destruction for starters.......I'll let you figure the rest for yourself...it ain't difficult...!
But just remember sometimes the alternative is worse....!
Death and destruction.
I know that war is a bad thing but what are the reasons why???
