2007-12-28 04:32:53 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. I think the British attempts to appease Hitler proved that for all time.
However, what we seem to have had in the U.S. this century is an effective platform seeking war, if not at all costs, then at all political opportunities. Yes, we were attacked, but we've started two large wars since then without ever making a reasonable effort to direct our hostilities toward the attackers.
The Taliban offered to let us come hunting bin Laden, and instead we attacked them. Now we're trying to shore up a puppet government while they get the popular sympathy and sell our people heroin to finance their resistance.
Saddam was no threat, and al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until we invaded and created the opportunity for a "franchise" branch to open. (We did so after bin Laden had released a tape explicitly warning us that would happen.) So far, we have done more to promote al Qaeda than we have to stop it.
On the way, we have lost a huge number of friends by demanding that they become our sycophantic lackeys or get treated like enemies. No nation, even a superpower, is strong enough to keep that up.
The only reason I can see for all this is that belligerence continues to play well in the polls.
2007-12-28 05:06:04 · answer #1 · answered by Samwise 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, as a matter of policy and practice rather than just a platform.
2007-12-28 04:47:04 · answer #2 · answered by HP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, peace is impossible unless the cost is the extermination of the human race. Even if we are gone the plants, insects and animals will fight on.
2007-12-28 04:42:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of it rather is a danger, yet very unbelievable. If the human inhabitants grow to be thoroughly decimated to assert, 3 hundred people, i think of it may be an obtainable objective. Or, if extraterrestrial beings attack, the international could be united. yet then we could produce different issues to agonize approximately. there's a tribe interior the Amazon who're amazingly non violent. they do no longer conflict in any respect between their kinfolk communities. rather, conflict and scuffling with do no longer even look a concept to them. So ya, i think of peace is a danger, yet very unbelievable given our cutting-edge international subject, yet no longer a useful objective.
2016-11-25 22:48:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as peace just really long cease fires
2007-12-28 04:38:50 · answer #5 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In reality, it is no one's platform.
2007-12-28 04:36:46 · answer #6 · answered by Skip F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At all costs to whom?
2007-12-28 09:00:22 · answer #7 · answered by Pascha 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See the documentary below for your answer...
2007-12-28 05:36:42 · answer #8 · answered by Mark R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it was achievable...YES
2007-12-28 04:37:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋