Faith: You read/hear something (e.g religious materials) and some of them are reasonable (for example all religions say life must have a goal) so you accept the rest.
Reason: You read something (e.g an article) you can prove all but the last claim. It isn't necessarily true. You are reading the most credible journal of your field, none of it is true unless proven.
Most of the religions share a few reasonable concepts. So sadly you'll most probably end up with the religion of where you were born, or you first read/heard about, if you believe in faith.
"But you have to accept that there will always be wars. They will never end." That's it, they are never a permanent solution, if at all.
Defence might have a chance arguing but war in general doesn't and I'm not judging US reaction to Germany. Give me an example of country which was in a dictatorship and after being attacked by an external power suddenly become stable, peaceful and democratic. Honestly have you ever asked opinion of an Iraqi or Afghan about that. All Iraqis I've spoken to hate US. As of 2006 there was several hundred thousands civilian deaths in Iraq and 30,000 in Afghanistan not counting those who died because of healthcare problem caused by war destructions. It is estimated by now the number of civilian death in these two countries have reached well above one million. There was 2973 casualties in the Sep. 11th attacks (and I'm truly sorry for each and every lives lost there too) but US actions caused far more casualties and destruction, not to mention many still doubt that how these attacks were possible considering US superior airforce and no WMD were found in Iraq. So these wars hasn't solved any problems. I'm not judging individual US soldiers who participated in these wars (and I'm sorry for what they suffered in these wars) but those politicians who started these wars.
It's reason which distinguishes opinions. War can never be a permanent solution. In many of the areas you might think it was war that solved the problems, it was actually other factors like diplomacy that solved the problem. Those who are diplomatically weak go to war. In my opinion the only thing that might got a chance arguing is defence not war in general.
Wars are caused by weakness, selfishness and greed. Wars are started because someone wants something but can't get it with reason or wants something unreasonable. Wars are started because someone wants more and say let's stole it from another. Wars are started because someone has taken away others property or rights.
"Who gets the right to say war is wrong?" Everyone gets the right to express his/her opinion.
"You know good and well Britain wouldn't allow it." I'm saying Britain should. Similarly Britain thought war would solve the problem and was wrong.
"Causualties will occur in war. If someone dies in war is it wrong? Even if that soldier wanted to win the war for his country? Is that soldier wrong for doing what he thinks is right?" I'm not discussing the individual soldiers, I'm discussing policies and leaders that results in war and whether it solves anything.
"If I start a forest fire that land will be destroyed. Eventually the land will regain its luster and create new fertile ground regardless of its previous destruction." So you think it's useful or resolves anything? You want to set forest on fire? The new fertile land was nothing compared to the ecosystem that once was there. Also you know that it isn't the fire that resulted in creation. After wars countries get rebuild but it's the nations who rebuild them not the war.
"War has created independence." It's knowledge and awareness that creates independence. A nation becomes independent because they realised they wanted to be independent and it's good for them.
So at best it solves a portion of problems it created and the net effect is creating more problems. Sometimes it's true but there's other solutions too. There were some instances in the history that after diplomatic talks the attacker abandoned the war (Genghis khan attack on Persia was one of the bloodiest even by their standards but some scientific cities (e.g Shiraz) has talked Genghis khan out of war and his army never entered the city). So there's still possibility for solving war problems without war.
War is the problem itself. There were problems after Britain started a war against America. After the war some of them resolved (like the recognition of independence) and some them not (like the casualties). If Britain accepted American independence instead of starting a war there won't be any problems. So the net effect is war creating problems.
"Destruction can result in creation." How???
You just made the point of the opposing side. There was a problem with Hitler because he started a war. If he hasn't started a war there won't be a problem in the first place so wars create problems not solve them. What was better at the end of the war than before its start.
If the Britain accepted independence of American colonies rather than attacking them, there won't be a problem again. Again problems are started with war not solved by it.
These sanctions has no basis since Iran has signed NPT and repeatedly stated they had no interest in nuclear weapons and IAEA reports found no evidence for deviation of Iran from its peaceful nuclear program.
Also these sanctions are specifically aimed at Iranian people rather than the government as US Congressman Brad Sherman has said "Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that."-reference Similarly, Congressman Gary Ackerman said, "The goal…is to inflict crippling, unendurable economic pain over there." These sentiments to target the population to feel the pain of the sanctions are echoed by other Western statesmen.
At least one Iranian child died because of drug shortage due to these sanctions-reference.
These sanctions create shortage in the oil supply or at the very least perception of shortage so oil prices rise sharply while they have little effect on Iran exports because Russia, China, India and US allies such as Japan and some European countries still import Iranian oil thus it is likely that Iran oil revenue actually have increased due to these sanctions.
First of all no of all no offensive country shall go unpunished.
Second war is not a solution.
Third there's no evidence to support that Iran has military nuclear program. All IAEA reports reflects that.
Fourth while Iran has signed NPT and has no nuclear weapons, Israel refuses to sign NPT and continue to maintain, develop and expand its nuclear arsenal.
Fifth even with nuclear weapons Iran can't be a threat to Israel since it has necessary strategic capability to deploy them.
Iraq has been subjected to inhuman sanctions and finally war under the same bogus pretext but it hasn't any WMD. Sanctions on Iran has been the cause of at least one child death. Israel wants to attack Iran because it's protesting against atrocities Israel is committing on Palestinians - read this report by Amnesty International.
