It seems these days that the only thing people respond to is imminent threat. Would it take the present and real threat of global destruction to create a situation where a real and lasting peace could come about? or is there another way? If there is.. im just not seeing it yet.
2007-09-24 04:33:55 · 7 answers · asked by nacsez 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
War doesn't bring peace. There was a bumper-sticker we used to see during the Vietnam War--"Killing for Peace is like F**king for Virginity".
The Iraq war has not made the world safer or more peaceful. It has not brought stability or democracy to the Middle East or even just Iraq. Does ANYONE really think bombing Iran will improve the situation? Or Syria?
Clambacke has the right idea. If we had swept through Iraq as we'd planned, installed a puppet 'democratic' government, got control of the oil, Bush would have swept on to Iran and Syria, and there would have been no stopping him. We killed half a million people in Iraq, how many more would have died in Iran and Syria?
If we -really- wanted peace we would work to cooperate with other nations instead of bullying them and pissing them off. We would work through the UN (or maybe some other organization of international cooperation) rather than try to dictate terms to everyone, including our allies.
Hitler wanted peace too! He just wanted it on his own terms.
2007-09-24 05:04:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have you been ever on a playground with 4-7 year old kids? It's a zoo. There is screaming and shoving and pushing and lots of laughter. Until a bully arrives. Suddenly, its a different atmosphere. Some suck up to him, some just leave, some get obnoxiously defensive. You guessed it, the bully is the USA and its time for the other 221 countries to tell his parents to take him home.
2007-09-24 04:45:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Peace is possible without a world war. However, with six billion people, there are going to be some who want to conquer the world and some who will actually try. There is no prevention or cure for megalomania.
2007-09-24 04:41:03 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the imminent threat has always been there so I don't know what you are talking about,is that the only thing you respond to , and who is the victor in this great battle , and who are we fighting?do you think that any individual wants to go to war?
why would any one want to go to a foriegn land and kill people that he has never met.
when a country goes to war they are not waging war against another country , they are waging war against there own people.
2007-09-24 06:37:12 · answer #4 · answered by CHRIS S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of that that's a hazard to do away with all tyrants from the international if we had an effective UN. enterprise and prepared crime, in truth, could by no ability enable this difficulty to exist, even nonetheless. the protection stress business complicated could in basic terms no longer enable a generalized peace. definite it may desire to be severely dwindled considering the fact that maximum wars are on a lawless, localized scale, initially.regrettably the subject could grow to be one among removing prepared crime and the protection stress from the equation with actuality.
2016-10-09 18:21:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There will never be world-wide peace. Someone somewhere will always be fighting. It's the nature of the human race.
2007-09-24 04:54:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no peace can be achieved. it is a liberal pipe dream where evrryone lays down their weapons, roll in flowers and have brunch every day. it distresses me but it is the truth.
2007-09-24 05:22:29 · answer #7 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋