why war is only aternative to have peace?

Answer 1

Because those who don't want peace force those who do into war. Once those who have refused peace are beaten or convinced to make a peaceful resolution to conflict, there can be peace.

This is exactly what Condoleeza Rice is saying - that there needs to be a *lasting* cease fire i.e. either Hezbollah needs to be beaten or decide that they are ready to permanently (yeah, right) end their war against Israel.

Answer 2

If you are referring to the latest killing in Lebanon ... shoot, that has been going on (with brief breathers) for about 5,000 years. The only way even the Romans (those master repressors) managed to keep the peace was to evict the Jews all together, and that is not an option these days. So it has gone, goes and will go, amen.
On the other hand, if your question is more general, then the answer is a tautology. Whenever you do not have peace, by definition, there is conflict. The only question becomes, "why?"
To me, it is a curious puzzle that we mad apes should kill each other with unceasing ferocity (and really, there has never yet been a time on this Earth when we weren't killing each other somewhere) when we are surrounded by such bounty. I suppose that is the difference between "humans" and "gorillas" ... gorillas can be satisfied, humans always want more: more food, shelter, comfort, safety, sex. Makes us cranky, it does.
There ought to be a word, actually for "enough-food/ shelter/ comfort/ safety/ sex-to-satisfy-an-ape" since these things (all together) are the driving force in human society. Rearranged a little, those letters make FASCESAS! Dang, that's pretty close to "Fascist", isn't it?
What do you think?

Answer 3

We need to stop trying to create peace and concentrate on minimalising the effects of war.

A huge outcry for what is happening in the middle east, yet deaths by easy to control diseases and cars and homegrown violence rocket/

A death toll of a few hundred in a war would have been seen as a major victory only a decade or so ago.

The use of military mite is there to propmt diplomatic solutions, such as we are seeing today in Lebanon, if we could get the death toll down to less that 100 before this happens then all the better.

What is better, 400 dead in two weeks or 4000 dead in six months?
If this can lead to diplomacy that will drastically reduced the dead through terrorism then I for one am for it

Answer 4

Spinoza
Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice.

Martin Luther King, Jr.
True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.

as some other far more astute people have said before me war is not the only alternative to peace and peace is not merely the absence of war.

both are far more complex than just black and white statements.

Answer 5

Because no one knows what Peace is all about without experiencing war. It make sense to recognize the value of peace if there is no comparison of how it is to be in war and in peace.

Answer 6

In the same manner that if its not bad, then its good. If its not wrong then its right. If its not Evil then its sacred or Holy. If there's no war, then there's definitely peace. But since war seems to be on the greedy's minds - forget peace.

Answer 7

Because some people desire power and control at all costs, (Sadam, Hitler, Satlin etc). and the only way to have peace is through war. These people will never peacefully negotiate or settle for anything less than total control and to enforce their will on others and hurt innocent people who disagree with them.

Answer 8

No one has the common sense to work out a peaceful solution to the worlds troubles

Answer 9

Nations can not exist without internal or external wars. Political power means capability for violence, and who ever wins the competion gains the right to rule.

Answer 10

it should not be an alternative,but a last resort,sometimes.we got be something "we don't like to be"in order to make things BE or happen,like in the case of a despots,who would not want to listen to advices or counseling and continues causing "destruction's and injustices"around the world.out of self interests,disputes and disagreements.with one another and the reasons differrs:it could be political.civil.or religional.http://360.yahoo.com/diana_v13 you may view more explanations in those blog,on human conflicts and cont ructions in these essays hope that it wil clarify matters.better.