Specifically, I am referring to the act of military engagement (war) based on the rationale of promoting peace or stability. Do you think that this type of war can foster peace, or will it only lead to more violence?
2006-08-30 14:08:36 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It seems to me that war is based on the idea of "an eye for an eye." You know what they say about that though, it leaves the whole world blind. How can violence possibly breed peace? America often goes to war in hopes of "spreading liberty." The countries we go in to often end up hating us. We say we don't understand why they fight back, we call their armies terrorists/rebels. All they are doing is defending their country.
"The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation."
How can we possibly suspect to spread liberty and peace when all we end up doing is slaughtering our fellow human beings?
I know that war is sometimes unavoidable, but fighting for peace...no.
War breeds hate not peace.
2006-08-30 14:16:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Peace is an illusion. Humankind will always compete for money, land and resources. When leaders say that they are fighting for peace, they are simply trying to appeal to the masses. What they are really saying is that they are fighting for their country's dominance so that no one will challenge our claims.
"Pax Romana" or Roman Peace was established by the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire through force of arms. The same is true today with our "Pax Americana". And like the Romans, we need to strengthen our faraway borders, otherwise we will surely find barbarians at our gates.
2006-08-30 21:29:37 · answer #2 · answered by eddygordo19 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fighting for peace, really does not make much sense!However trying to talk our way to peace with fanatics gets us no where either. You can't buy fanatics off. You can not compromise, You can not make promises , and arbitrate. they hate you and will attack us, which leads to war! You have to realize that we are the infidels and the only thing to make the fanatics happy , Is our deaths!
Well, I guess we could just let them kill us and do absolutely nothing about it. In other words , NO WAR!
2006-08-30 21:18:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
War can and does lead to peace. Europe is stable and peaceful thanks to both WWI and WWII. America lives in peace due to the Civil War. History is full of peace and yes, even of democracy, that led out of wartime actions. There are times that the means justifies the end.
2006-08-30 21:14:25 · answer #4 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Peace is only the short interval between wars.
2006-08-30 21:13:04 · answer #5 · answered by SpankyTClown 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, the threat of war is a deterrent to war. If they don't believe you are willing to go to war to stand up for your country then you leave yourself open to being attacked by an aggressor. If you don't finish the job then you can expect more violence.
2006-08-30 21:12:05 · answer #6 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I believe in "fighting for peace". However, fighting for peace means defending your country when it is attacked by outsiders and driving out those foreign forces out of your territory. It does not mean defending your country by attacking others who might potentially be a threat.
2006-08-30 21:12:14 · answer #7 · answered by Borna F 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think there is only peace when one side is completely conquered. So, yes, I believe in fighting for peace.
2006-08-30 21:15:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think violence begets violence. It's a vicious cycle.
2006-08-30 21:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by valkyria 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
peace can never be attained by fighting. stop fighting and you will be in peace. military act will certainly prohibit peace but u need to have active defeneces to protect yourself from terrorist n other intruders.
thank you
2006-08-30 21:14:55 · answer #10 · answered by ramesh_bhawnani 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋