2006-06-09 20:54:15 · 10 answers · asked by Atheist 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I agree with you entirely, not with zmm. When the troops withdraw, there will be a power vacuum, and many minority groups will fight for power. It happens wherever the established government is usurped
2006-06-09 23:34:15 · answer #1 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I think it's too simplified to be relevent. Think about what a cop does in a city. Part of his job is to keep the city peaceful. He has a gun to use if need be, but it wouldn't be fair to say a cop goes around fighting for peace. Instead, he has other methods of trying to keep the peace: deterrence of crime, or arrest of criminals. Put simply, I don't think people should use the phrase "fighting for peace" but that doesn't mean that armed people can't help promote peace.
2006-06-10 10:58:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not true. Once the ******* is finished, virginity is gone for good, but when fighting ends, peace is re-established. I think that "fighting for peace is like ******* for abstainance" would be a more accurate analogy.
2006-06-10 04:02:34 · answer #3 · answered by zmm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could have used different terminology, but yes, absolutely. Fighting, however, does not necessarily involve the use of violence.
2006-06-10 03:58:33 · answer #4 · answered by Scozbo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I Dont Comply!
2006-06-10 05:16:23 · answer #5 · answered by evil_gladiator 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-06-10 03:59:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is.
2006-06-10 07:12:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you.
2006-06-10 04:56:27 · answer #8 · answered by Irmak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't put it that way. Then I would be for it!!
2006-06-10 04:01:25 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well said. i agree.
2006-06-10 03:58:09 · answer #10 · answered by vanessa w 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋