I say that without victory, you really can't have peace.
2006-08-23 02:08:43 · 26 answers · asked by why 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
So people don't like the question? There are 2 thumbs down votes for my question. I thought it was a good question to facilitate debate and thinking.
2006-08-23 02:27:09 · update #1
Peace HAD a chance, so lets give war a try.
You are correct, without Victory, there will be no peace.
2006-08-23 02:14:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would say both.It is through war that peace comes. What would our world be like if there was no adversity. No courage,no hero's. A world that is spineless. Sorry to say but many don't agree with the concept of war because of the loss of life. But I think that hero's are born and courage grows which brings birth to peace.
2006-08-23 09:16:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is not something that can be answered. It is not a war that can be won and if history in that region is any indicator of the future there will never be true peace. With that said I think it is important we stay there to help the leadership gain a functional independence.
2006-08-23 09:21:26 · answer #3 · answered by ParaUnNormal 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's fine but victory over whom?
Saddam has already been defeated. Victory over the terrorists might not be possible with guns alone. And how do you decide when you are victorious? Is it when all the terrorists are gone from Iraq? That's certainly not going to happen while American troops are there. But if American troops leave Iraq will surely descend into all out civil war.
You can only win when Iraq is strong enough to govern itself effectively.
2006-08-23 09:13:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I suppose that depends on how you define winning.
It used to be that a victorious outcome to a military conflict occurred when one opponent reached the goals that it set out to achieve when the conflict was started.
Increasingly, however, participants do not state their goals at the outset of a conflict, constantly change them during the course of a conflict, and then at the end of the conflict, regardless of the result, declare "victory".
It may be that this is possible because, in modern warfare, it is simply unacceptable to wage total war to achieve unquestionable, unconditional surrender. Like bad neighbors, all the participants can do snipe at each other over the fence, and try to make themselves look good to the rest of the neighborhood.
Which leads to a question about your question - if its not possible to win a war anymore, what's the point of war in the first place ?
2006-08-23 09:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by AmericanDreamer 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nobody 'wins' when it comes to war. If both parties agree to stopping a war and pursuring peace and are really sincere, then that is the way to go. The idea of a victory is nothing but a matcho ideal really. Men need to start thinking differently about war, stop glorifying it and seeing it for what it is like women do...it is hell on earth and should be avoided as much as possible.
2006-08-23 09:13:00 · answer #6 · answered by MadforMAC 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
We are not fighting a war. We are providing security forces for private oil companies. And, terrorists are fighting private oil companies. There is no possibility of victory for any army of men and women who fight over that oil. And, you do not believe that an army will change people's religious beliefs so that they can live in peace together? There is madness loose in the world. It infects the feeble-minded, the heartless and the hopeless. There won't be peace until weak men infected with the madness have killed and harmed and frightened so many women, children and old people that no one remains to love and care for the madmen. Then, the madmen will destroy each other, as it should be.
2006-08-23 09:34:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I agree with you and I can't figure out why people give a thumbs down for questions. Even good ones like yours. People are weird.
2006-08-23 11:16:52 · answer #8 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question presupposes the answer.
The US leaving Iraq will not bring peace to Iraq, it will only bring heightened Civil War & reprisal killings. It will allow the nations supporting the insurgency to focus their terrorist efforts on other places, thus broadening the conflict, not narrowing it.
2006-08-23 10:27:42 · answer #9 · answered by Will B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are CORRECT , give yourself a big hug !
Victory is when you have destroyed the enemies will or means to continue fighting .
Then you can have peace .
Giveing in to a threat is not peace .
2006-08-23 09:20:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋