are the only nations able to effectively fight a war in other continents?
2006-11-05 15:01:44 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes I am a believer, history has shown that over the years we are the most capable of not only effectively fighting a war, but we also negotiate peace and settle into other nations to gain allies. Too bad we aren't more like Solomon he married all his enemies daughters that way there would be no war, and more fun and frolic. Like the hippies, make love not war. But instead the strife goes on as usual. The policies of which we both,(England and US) follow are the ones created by Julius Caesar, he came, he saw and conquered, but he did one main change he made policy in the senate to form unions, to negotiate peace with allies, and that was the Roman way. They had a similiar government with the senate, but they called it the Republic. Very odd how we as humans adopt things and complicate the issues but all goes into a circle of development and then eventually fails only to bring about war. Check out the wars between India and Great Britain, you might find that ironic, because they have a parliament and they completely lost India and upon that the civil war in India, and then Pakistan. Where as we have our negotiating powers everywhere, because we have a well developed Democratic society with 3 branches of leaders. Congress, Senate, and House, and President. Where as you have Monarch and Parliament and parliament is divided into groups but not a democratic voting system, and not too good at negotiating.
2006-11-05 17:59:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well its not like they go at it alone. They fight with a Coalition of the Willing....Afghanistan contributes sticks, stones, and a couple horses. Albania- main industry: survival farming. El Salvador, Bulgaria, Eritrea (not sure of their contributions), Estonia (stoners!), Australia (but not New Zealand), Ethiopia (no comment), more important countries- Italy and Japan (69% and 70% of each population opposed to this war). Lots of others too! Shame on you for saying that only the greatest country in the world and the UK are able to effectively fight a war in other continents. I mean seriously, they couldn't have done it without Palau. Oh, Palau is a group of islands in the North Pacific w/ 20,000 citizens. Thats more support than the democrats can give, Hey-O! And remember that Morocco offered 2000 monkeys to help detonate land mines in Iraq. They were declined, bless their patriotic little hearts! JEB BUSH 2008!
Also, define "effectively".
2006-11-05 23:45:05 · answer #2 · answered by Dirty Mutt 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was no sure thing that the UK was going to win all it's wars in India, Africa and the Middle East during the colonial land grabs before and during the Napoleanic Wars. France won quite a few of those squabbles. Napolean took North Africa. Italy fought in Ethiopia in the early twentieth century and won. During the Era of the Treasure Ships (early 1400s) China demanded and got tribute from all of East Africa. And, as mentioned by another answerer, the Romans conquered in the middle east and north africa, as well as europe.
2006-11-06 01:33:27 · answer #3 · answered by Rico Toasterman JPA 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about the Roman Empire
2006-11-06 01:21:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the size of the war, its duration, and the strength of the enemy. There is no one answer to this question.
2006-11-05 23:08:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I think China could.
2006-11-05 23:11:16 · answer #6 · answered by Violante 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't call this "effective".
2006-11-05 23:14:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no..
2006-11-06 03:36:28 · answer #8 · answered by Quinnie 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋