The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The idea that a war can be won by standing on the defensive and waiting for the enemy to attack is a dangerous fallacy, which owes its inception to the desire to evade the price of victory.
If you're against war, you're against war regardless of what happens. It's a wrong method of trying to settle a dispute.
Here's the thing. Just because you're pro-troops doesn't mean you're pro-war. And just because you're anti-war doesn't mean you're anti-troops. Just because you don't support the war people think you are anti-troops and you are a bad guy.
The principal cause of war is war itself.
War is just an effect, not a cause.
The argument that resistance to the war should remain strictly nonviolent seems to me overwhelming.
My explanation remains the same: It was an attempt to make the point that anyone who opposed the war can achieve their objective by working within their sphere of influence, whether their political party or community of faith.
Make no mistake: the anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent.
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another... after the war is on.