Since modern war is the "extension of politics by other means", one would tend to believe that victory is the accomplishment of your political goals by those other means. We can achieve victory without war but that is trickier and requires the use of idiot diplomats who generally undermine everyones political goals to keep living the high life on the public dime.
If our goals for NK and Iraq are both regime change and the opportunity of freedom for those people then I would say it is the same. We have accomplished regime change in Iraq and the people have an opportunity for freedom just as soon as foreigners and angry religious thugs stop blowing them up. North Korea is harder to affect because of it's superpower sponsor (Red China) and the fact that it's dictator is probably legally insane (Hussein was touched but still had his wits about him). I think if NK does something stupid like bomb Japan or South Korea, the Chinese will be forced to wash their hands of it or make the regime change themselves. Of course the North Korean people still won't have the opportunity to be free.
2006-07-18 07:04:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Crusader1189 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The definition of "victory" is the same for all conflicts. It means to impose one's will on another's. In the old days it may have been killing off the enemy warriors until they cry mercy. Today it may be using public opinion and public perception to discourage a side to back off a conflict (ie Vietnam, Iraq). Both ways, one side seeks to destroy the others' wills.
Victory in Iraq may mean to stabilize (and reconstruct) the country and place all the power on the Iraqi government as opposed to the factions pulling and pushing at this moment. Meanwhile, victory in North Korea may mean to topple the "Communist" (more like a dictatorship) regime and create a "democratic" government for its people (or extend S. Korea's government to them as well).
2006-07-18 15:16:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by nerdyjohn 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Every war has a reason or reasons. If nothing else, the government has to justify the loss of life and capital to its citizens. When the war is won, "Victory," is what they call fulfilling the reasons given to the public. I might note here that governments sometimes lie to the people and mislead them as to what the REAL reasons are for going to war. Theoretically, a government could end a war without a stated victory, but could have a secret one!!!!
2006-07-18 14:04:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
TO ENFORCE RULE OF LAW AS PER WELL ESTABLISHED TENETS OF DHARMA IS VICTORY OF GOOD OVER THE BAD
THE EPIC MAHABHARATA IS A DETAILED DOCUMENTATION OF RULE OF LAW BY DHARMA. THERE WERE NO VICTORS AFTER THE GREATEST OF ALL WARS.ONLY LOSERS AND THE INDEPENDENT EYES OF TORSO LESS HEAD , PERCHED ON TOP OF MOUNTAIN BELONGING TO SON OF GHATOTKACH GRAND SON OF MIGHTY BHEEM, ONLY SAW THE DEATH DANCE OF GODDESS BHAIRAVI AND SUDARSHAN CHAKRA OF LORD KRISHNA.
2006-07-18 14:36:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by ceepeejoe 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Victory is an idea, not a fact; hence, it is whatever you say it is when you say it (i.e., it can be redefined to take present circumstances into account).
2006-07-18 14:04:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Walter Ridgeley 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Victory means that your mission (whatever it was) was successful.
2006-07-18 13:55:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chatty 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ya know that peace can only be won, when ya blow-em all to kingdom come.---------------- Thanx to Country Joe & The Fish
2006-07-19 17:03:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by preacher55 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
winning
2006-07-18 13:54:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Harold T 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
we have to keep killing until we are all killed.
2006-07-18 13:54:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by soperson 4
·
0⤊
0⤋