How can two countries stop war when they are both fighting for peace?
Fascinating question. I'm not sure if wars are fought to win peace; however, I've heard "we are fighting there to help bring peace to this nation." The quesiton is, whose peace are we talkng about?
By getting their heads outta thier ***. just kidding. But really, what you need to consider when talking bout matters of war and peace, you must consider for WHOM is the peace the country is fighting for intended.
Wars are generally fought because a more powerful state will want to secure its interests and so first thy'll try to get peace for their own people by "negociating" with the other state of interest, but if that doesnt work out, theoretical realism holds that a state would then be obliged to enter war to presever the interest and "peace of mind" of its people.
Truth of the matter is, international politics is really all about whos got more power and whos got more resources and those people tend to exercise dominance in all areas of interest be it economics policts or whatever. (US has the power to veto in UN for example is a show of power dominance in politics)
I don't think wars are ever fought to achieve peace. I would argue there is almost always a hidden agenda.
If peace is the goal, what was the aim in starting the war? Obviously, it wasn't peace because that was their begining point. Therefore, the war was born out of the very thing they are fighting for. I suspect the countries involved are run by two guys who are a sandwich short of a picnic. Come to think of it, there're short the whole picnic!
a US pres said war is a necessary evil in achieving peace. but really? can you talk peace while having guns, ammos, nuclear weapons in your hands? NO. And peace is never achieved that way.
kids would usually have no nerve to try fight somebody with a staff, especially an adult. but they might if they, too, have something in their hands that can be used to fight back. if kids, who do not aim for power, would fight back if they have the means... what more of governments, who's lifeblood is power and having all these powerful weapons?
but compared to children who do not have responsibilities upon their shoulders, and thus, could do whatever their impulse tells, governments have subjects to care for and whose lives must be spared from war - peaceful talks will.
if both countries want peace for themselves, they would sit and talk like adults.
however, there are individuals in power who wouldn't simply
give in and would have entirely different principles and goals, so here comes the necessity to use force by means of war, like a parent's need to use force to discipline a child. Sadly, peace is achieved at the expense of many lives through war.
I don't believe that in the "real world" two countries can be fighting each other on the basis of peace...unless they are delusional. War normally consists of a perpretrator and a respondent. Some times the respondent makes the first move because request after request has been made of the perpretrator to cease and desist to no avail. Peace is the absence of war. When two parties fight, peace will not be their objective...willing and domination will be. Once those goals are accomplished, then maybe peace can follow. That is the reality of life. WB
Are they fighting for peace or something more like power--who will be right and come out on top. It reminds me of when two siblings fight and the parents say--let them fight it out themselves.
What happens? The more aggressive child wins and get his way, and the child who is less aggressive or powerful gets the shaft, and learns to put up with the aggressive child's power and domination.
Two countries fight for peace, but whose definition of peace? The more aggressive and powerful country will win and the lesser country will compromise and put up with crap to keep the peace but is country number two really happy and are the people better off? Who knows.
The answer is simple: by making peace.
Beasts fight each other but not always whereas man the animal has been waging wars throughout his existence.
I am soon to publish a fictitious short story on Squidoo which ends by Israel and Palestine not only making peace but joining together to build one state.
In our life full of paradoxes, maybe both countries can fight for peace, one by invading the other and the other trying to liberate itself and then taking over the defeated one. LOL
I like the expression
"Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity".
The other expressions are less cynical,
Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered,
those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.
Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.
War does not determine who is right – only who is left.
A great war leaves the country with three armies – an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Presumably, by choosing some other type of striving in order to achieve their goals.
This perspective would invert the famous dictum of Clausewitz that "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means."
Here, diplomacy would become "the continuance of war by other means"--ones, it must be said, more in keeping with the goal itself. After all, "fighting for peace" could be rather like "eating to lose weight," couldn't it?
They can't. Either you're at war or at peace. Fighting for peace is like putting out a fire with more fire.
No war is fought for peace. War is fought because one side believes in something different than the other side.
One side behaves aggresively, until the other side retalliate
Yes both sides are fighting for peace but only peace on their own terms. When 'peace" is achieved both sides push to increase their miliatry forces for the "defense" of their countries.
If peace was achieved, there would be no need for defense.
Ummmmmmmm, apparently their definition of peace is not the same, else they wouldn't have been fighting over it in the first place. And if they both feel that what they're doing is right, they will never stop. That's the nature of righteoussness. So, there's two ways to stop the war.
The first is the mother approach. When two brothers are fighting, the mother will stomp into the room and wring both their necks, stopping the fight right quick. Of course, the brothers are still going to quarrel and bicker, but they won't make overt attacks on one another because mom is watching and already tired of their bullshit.
The second is simpler and results in no remaining animosity between the two countries: one country and all its citizens are wiped from the map. Peace is achieved.
by Wayne Brown 7 years ago
What aspect of the Civil War in the USA intrigues you as a reader?
by Marcelle Hinkson 2 years ago
Why War, Why don't individuals use their energy on Fighting for PEACE instead.Why the constant fighting over useless wares of materialistic avenues of political agendas that is just trying to make matters worst?
by days leaper 5 years ago
As some-one said to the question. "Is any-one else in the west fed up of america's war mongering?" that 'we're already in a third world war due to all the skirmishes that the major powers are involved in'. But does this constitute a world war, or a pre cursor to a world...
by peter565 3 years ago
How much longer do you think the US would remain the most powerful in the world?When George Bush was in power, a lot of people think, US' time as most powerful nation in the world is limited, due to the continue crippling economy and one ill foreign policy after another, especially to do with Iraq...
by kirstenblog 8 years ago
I saw this comment on another thread and felt that it was to big a question to respond to there. I read it as a bit of a flippant comment in my mind (as you do when reading stuff online) and felt a strong reaction, that no war is a good war because war is built on destruction the worst of which is...
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
Hi friendsMorals are doing something on its proper occasion. This is what Krishna taught to his famous cousin in Gita. Had Krishna not fought at that time; it would have been an immoral act on his part? Krishna was a Prince of Peace yet he had to fight with his uncles and other kith and kin for...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|