2006-07-21 08:38:16 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Except to put an end to Slavery, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, war has not solved anything!
2006-07-21 08:50:13 · answer #1 · answered by jazzzame 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If peace is the goal, then a war can achieve that, yes. "Peace" on a large scale is generally when the balance of power is so lopsided that a little shift on the fringes doesn't make much difference in the general stability of the situation. (ie: world powers, dictators, etc). That's not actually a very pleasant thought.
On a smaller scale, peace is a cooperative effort to rectify the problems that arise (and they will always arise). That cooperative effort might be against a maurading external or poisonous internal force, and once it is defeated, peace is restored (until the next significant threat comes along).
2006-07-21 08:44:36 · answer #2 · answered by Kay 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is like smoking. It's not a question of making peace, just like you can't struggle against cigarettes. The only thing you can do is just not smoke, or not make war. Very simple. Very difficult. Our country doesn't want peace, but a stable war. Good boost for the economy. Human life is cheap to the people that run the show.
2006-07-21 08:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by Ramuel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Romans has a saying that went something like "if you want peace, then prepare for war". They had an enforced peace within their empire for longer than any other period in history. And yes, they enforced it rather brutally at times.
The truth of the matter is that pacifism often leads to an increase in violence. you can see this in the past few centuries - think Napoleon, Hitler etc. When people refuse to oppose evil (and yes, there is real evil in this world), then evil grows.
The only partial counter example I can think of right now is Ghandi in India, who achieved independance from the British Empire with pacifistic methods.
2006-07-21 08:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by jrlatmit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US won it's independence from England through war and has been at peace with them for the last 200 years, so yes You can win.
2006-07-21 08:40:31 · answer #5 · answered by Boo R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, The only way we can win is if we are using self defense not preemption. Preemptive War for Peace will only cause resentment,fear, and chaos. In our to win the peace you must have just cause. We do not have just cause or everyone would be unified. This is a failed policy.
2006-07-21 08:44:10 · answer #6 · answered by DEEJay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL, IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.
Once the agressor has been eliminated, yes. If Islamic terrorists today threw down their weapons and gave up fighting, there would be peace in the Middle East... if Israel did that, there would be another Holocaust! "There is no live and let live with bugs."
2006-07-21 08:42:50 · answer #7 · answered by cncnmn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no. Short-term, there won't be peace. (The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 weren't far apart...)
Long-term, peace can come if the people want it bad enough. (Government is an institution of the people, by the people, for the people....so peace is up to the people.)
2006-07-21 08:48:47 · answer #8 · answered by Dwight D J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one is fighting in the name of peace. Freedom maybe but not peace. Peace is for cowards.
2006-07-21 08:41:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So long as anyone wants to initiate force against another for any reason there will not be peace. This includes forcing someone to give up their hard earned money (taxes), forcing someone to not put certain things in their bodies (drug laws), forcing someone to live by the ways of your religion, etc.
2006-07-24 20:25:25 · answer #10 · answered by e1war 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God Speel, get a grip.
I want peace..wars just murder on an industrial scale.
To answer the question, i think it is nessecary to fight to maintain peace..look at the great wars..
2006-07-21 08:43:44 · answer #11 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋