Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
2006-07-30 16:04:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by m 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Part of the issue is there has to be a winner.
When two dogs are fighting and you keep separating them...
"CEASE FIRE, CEASE FIRE!"
When no one is there to separate the dogs...the go right back to fighting... Because nothing was settled.
***They both think they have a chance to be the winner, because last time neither lost.
If you let the dogs finish the fight, one will win and one will lose. Only then will there be peace between the two. Because then each will know there place.
If you have seen dogs fight you know this is true. After they fight for dominance the one who has lost submits to the strength of winner.
If they are kept from finishing the fight they will snarl forever across the fence from each other in posturing and attack the next chance they get. The dogs are unhappy because they are constantly attempting to "defend" there position of perceived dominance.
The "peace" keepers are always unhappy because they have to be on constant lookout for a dogfight. The neighbors are never happy because it seems that their is always a "peace keeper" in someone else’s lawn, or a dogfight.
Just because they aren't allowed to fininish the fight.
That’s my two cents.
2006-07-30 10:56:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Crystal Violet 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I had a friend who used to tell me the reason the world does not have peace yet is because we never had a big enough war yet. He was probably right ,a big enough war that would wipe out the human race would bring peace.
2006-07-30 11:22:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure it does, Look up Pax Romana[1].
Roman Civil Wars gave rise to 153 years of peace.
Also look up Post hoc ergo propter hoc[2], this is an argumentative fallacy. This will make you aware that "after" does not necessarily mean "becausee of".
So often just becaus one war FOLLOWS another war it does not always mean that the second war happened "BECAUSE OF" the first war.
2006-07-30 13:28:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by hq3 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No it gained't. It merely helps cloud the themes causing the turmoil in first position. Peace is merely something human beings favor for. someone is often combating someplace. it is continually been that way and continually will until eventually the very end.
2016-11-27 00:07:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by launius 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
To make war to achieve peace is like fuccing for virginity
2006-07-30 10:46:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There will always be war because there will always be evil.
All we can do is to try to hold back evil untill the end,
whenever that may be....
2006-07-30 10:56:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by frhrcjs 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
i actually believe that certain wars have brought long periods of peace that would have lasted if certain offspring werent such greedy little bastards but its been a long time since a war did any good, but they can.
2006-07-30 14:45:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
war will NEVER bring peace
it will only bring mor war
more blood shed
more sadness
but people r stupid and keep thinking its a good idea
cant we just learn from our mistakes
like were suppose to
no we just cnt
or can we
d
2006-07-30 10:42:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by so_totally_awesome13 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Violence, if applied properly, can definitely bring peace.
If you kill the dog that disturbs the peace you have peace.
Simple, innit?
2006-07-30 12:30:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋