or as Einstein stated, can it only be achieved by understanding? I believe that you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
2006-09-05 08:21:49 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They do because they are delusional. Keeping the peace through the threat of force is like keeping your child from hitting others by threatening a spanking.
Once the country gets a chance to develop a stronger army and more powerful weapons they won't have so much fear and may even try something (such as annexing Kuwait) to prove a point.
2006-09-05 08:26:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The appearance of peace may be kept by force. But real peace can only be achieved with understanding.
The difference being, that the appearance of peace will turn into war the moment the oppressed believe they have a chance however slim at getting out from under the abuser. The other is real peace were one group of people have no intention of subjugating it's neighbor.
2006-09-05 08:27:15 · answer #2 · answered by Eli 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps it is a bit more complicated.
Historically it would seem that there have been situations where force was required to re-establish peace. The American Civil War and WWII would seem to be reasonable examples.
The complexity may arise because there are different kinds of wars. Some wars are for territory, some for hegemony, some seem to rise out of religious or racial strife. And some wars in the last century, seem to happen because they are profitable to certain parties that have seized control of a given government.
I think Einstein's pacifism, commendable though it was, was a bit naive. And Edward Teller, who believed that superweapons may in the end change the nature of national competition,
much as I despised his message, may have had it more right.
The one thing that is hard to account for, and this resonates particularly today, is mad men and secret governments with hidden agendas.
Sorry. I don't think there are easy answers to your question.
But I do think that people, not nations or governments, are generally more peaceful and less violent than was once the case. And that is a hopeful thing.
2006-09-05 08:30:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Politicians are not the only ones that believe that peace is kept by force. So does the military. The job of the military REALLY is NOT to go to war and kill people. The job of the military is to be so prepared and so capable that no nation on the face of the earth is willing to suffer the consequences of armed conflict with your military.
The only ones that believe, incorrectly, that making nice nice with the bad boy countries and wacko extremist leaders of the world will lead to peace are the diplomats. THEY are a bunch of over educated, no common sense people who see the world through rose colored glasses.
Play nice like we've unfortunately been doing due to ignorant bleeding heart liberal bedwetters who "just want to get along" and the bad boys will clean your clock because they do not play be "the rules".
PEACE is achieved by having, and USING when necessary, SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
2006-09-05 08:29:03 · answer #4 · answered by StaffSergeant C 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Study the world events of the 1930s and see if you need this question answered.
In the 1930s, especially in Europe, the desire for peace was so strong that when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, the League of Nations, specifically the European 'powers', were reluctant to even write a stern letter to him.
In that same decade, Germany reinstituted its military and reoccupied the Rhineland, both violations of the Treaty of Versailles. But, because the 'powers' were seeking peace-at-all-costs, they let this occur without any response. They allowed the annexation of Austria. The height of their folly was the Munich Accords, where the powers sold out Czechoslovakia for peace.
Did all this appeasement bring peace? September 1939 shattered that illusion for what it was.
History is replete with people thinking peace can be achieved by pacifism - when the fact is that pacifism actually achieves the opposite because it lets the aggressors operate without fear.
As for 'understanding', pray tell, how does one come to an understanding with a person who is willing to strap a bomb vest on himself just so he can blow you and your family to shreds? That is a person beyond 'understanding', in case you hadn't noticed.
2006-09-05 08:33:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Einstein was a scientist, who enabled the invention of the most lethal terrestrial force known to living creatures in HISTORY. So, please don't quote the ol' fart, will you, his credibility on matters of politics is automatically nullified.
As for peace won by force, I give you:
American Revolution
Mex-Amer War
WW1
WW2
Korea
Bosnia
etc etc etc
Through diligent and overwhelming force is your enemy brought to a peaceful disposition. Negotiation buys your enemy time, resources and more motivation as your ability to demonstrate resolve is consistently compromised by talking without action.
We are a very understanding lot, us Western/Christian/Democratic folk. It's not us with the understanding issue, can we say that without guilt, without doubt, without caveat?
When extreme elements stop boarding trains, planes and automobiles with explosive devices, and when they exercise educated reasoning and comprehension of multi-culturalism, human liberties and peaceful debate, perhaps THEN the understanding equilibrium may be achieved and force will not be used.
You may begin holding your breath now.
2006-09-05 08:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
iI believe in PEACE through SUPERIOR FIRE POWER. What do you think? Do you believe that EVERYONE on this planet will evolve enough to not fight? It is one of our worse attributes. Who will put the "stick down first?" With our technology, we NEED superior fire power for defense. Only a maniacal tyrant would even THINK of trying to go against the US. Why HAVEN"T we been attacked on our own soil except for 9/11??? Who in their right mind would? The terrorists, or as I like to call them Tony Sheetheads, want to anhiliate us. All of us who are NOT Muslim. When that kind of thinking goes the way of the Dodo, then we MAY have peace, but then someone with a crackhead scheme to rule the world ala Adolph and Stalin will come along and want to kill everyone who is different from them. What do YOU propose we do??
2006-09-05 08:56:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they dont they wont declare wars. You can achiev both at the same time. You prevent war by living peacefully with others and prepare for war by making sure your Military is always prepared for any eventuality.
2006-09-05 08:29:23 · answer #8 · answered by MAFOKOCHIZHI 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How much understanding did Hitler need? Or Mao Tse Tung, or Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot? Should we take away weapons from our police officers and give them courses in "understanding bank robbers"? There are some ruthless people in the world and you cannot reason with them. Osama and the little runt running Iran cannot be reasoned with. They are after one thing--world domination. They want the whole world ruled under Islamic law. They will use your self righteousness to work for them.
2006-09-05 08:43:24 · answer #9 · answered by khcs89120 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what universe you live in, but here in the real world, there is only 1 thing that keeps us safe. That is the use of force, or the threat of it. There really are bad people in the world, and if the good people of the world are not willing to fight to protect themselves, the bad people will take advantage.
2006-09-05 08:28:58 · answer #10 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋