Can War Be A Peace Maker?

by **Our Constitution** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:09 pm

Humanity has been at war for 10,000 years or more. Assuming we don't all go extinct from some super weapon or act of nature.... humanity will probably be at war for another 10,000 years.

Learn to deal with it. Even if a generation or two does manage to have peace, war will continue to exist.

by **Station 12** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:19 pm

Considering the fact that, even in peace, everything is happening at once, I don't really agree with the idea that war and peace are opposites. Very, very different, but not opposite.

The fact that something requires peace to be made shows that something is going seriously wrong there, in which case, war will just make things worse. The only time war can lead to peace is if a large, peaceful, prosperous and powerful nation curbstomps a smaller, weaker and easy to destroy nation, and that's not making peace, that's moving from peace, to war, to peace.

by **Acadzia** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:21 pm

Carl Von Clausewitz said that "War is politics by any other means." He argued that the right to make war was an extension of states' powers, but should only be used when all other methods (soft power, non-violent hard power) had been exhausted. Clausewitz more or less agrees with St. Augustine of Hippo, who said that war should be a last resort and even formulated a just-war criteria.

That said, I am wont to agree with Von Clausewitz and Augustine of Hippo. However, I think that very few wars are ever justified under Clausewitz's or Augustine's criteria.

by **Gopferdammi** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:33 pm

Can fucking be a way to protect your virginity?

by **Manahakatouki** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:36 pm

Nope because one side believes peace or righteousnous is to happen if they win and same with the other (some what). So obviously if one wins...then one side does not have thier peace right and then thus...no peace....

by **The Adrian Empire** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:37 pm

Stoniaso wrote:Do you think war can also bring peace?

Yes, to be brutally honest yes, the Pax Romana would never have been were it not for military conquest, war brings peace, world war two brought about the peace of the modern age, war can't be eliminated, but it can be utilized for the right causes, like democracy

by **Kamsaki** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:42 pm

I think it can, but it needs to be a horrible, painful, morally ambiguous, long, immensely damaging and unwon one. If at the end of it the warmakers lie dead at their own hands, covered in the blood of everyone indescriminately, such that the entire world can look back at it and agree "Never Again", there will be peace. But is it a price worth paying?

by **Venezia and Slovenia** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:43 pm

Yes it can.

by **Conserative Morality** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:44 pm

Kamsaki wrote:I think it can, but it needs to be a horrible, painful, morally ambiguous, long, immensely damaging and unwon one. If at the end of it the warmakers lie dead at their own hands, covered in the blood of everyone indescriminately, such that the entire world can look back at it and agree "Never Again", there will be peace. But is it a price worth paying?

The entire world may say 'Never again', but it will happen. Again. And Again. And again...

by **Manahakatouki** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Kamsaki wrote:I think it can, but it needs to be a horrible, painful, morally ambiguous, long, immensely damaging and unwon one. If at the end of it the warmakers lie dead at their own hands, covered in the blood of everyone indescriminately, such that the entire world can look back at it and agree "Never Again", there will be peace. But is it a price worth paying?

The entire world may say 'Never again', but it will happen. Again. And Again. And again...

True...true.....

by **Goldsaver** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:50 pm

Gopferdammi wrote:Can fucking be a way to protect your virginity?

Look, peace isn't like virginity, where you can never regain it after losing it, because peace, however temporary, always returns.
The main reason a major war hasn't happened in so long, where before WW2 it broke out every few decades, is because of WW2, which showed the power of nuclear weapons. In the end, the reason why WW3 didn't happen between the Allies and the USSR is because of nuclear weapons.

by **Kamsaki** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:55 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:The entire world may say 'Never again', but it will happen. Again. And Again. And again...

Depends on how vicious the war itself is. I'm not just talking World War Two, here, where we send soldiers off to fight on our behalf and grieve their loss, or are taken over and forced to work under occupation; I mean everyone actively chooses to take up arms and fight against an omnipresent and vicious enemy in the form of those they previously loved, in open hostility, without hope of survival, over a protracted period of time, for what they think to be good reasons but later realise are nothing more than illusions projected by the warmongers only onto those who were stupid enough to fall for them.

If that doesn't stop people fighting, nothing will.

by **Venezia and Slovenia** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:03 pm

Gopferdammi wrote:Can fucking be a way to protect your virginity?

That's an appalling analogy.

by **Conserative Morality** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:14 pm

Kamsaki wrote:Depends on how vicious the war itself is. I'm not just talking World War Two, here, where we send soldiers off to fight on our behalf and grieve their loss, or are taken over and forced to work under occupation; I mean everyone actively chooses to take up arms and fight against an omnipresent and vicious enemy in the form of those they previously loved, in open hostility, without hope of survival, over a protracted period of time, for what they think to be good reasons but later realise are nothing more than illusions projected by the warmongers only onto those who were stupid enough to fall for them.

If that doesn't stop people fighting, nothing will.

Ehh, that scenario is improbable to the point of being impossible.

by **Great Nepal** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:55 pm

Of course.

War brings peace. U can't have peace without a war. Now for eg. I f u want peace u will need WW3 in which a nation will conquer the world wnd there will be no war ever again...

by **Lord General** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:58 pm

War only seems to create more agendas

by **Meldaria** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:59 pm

Sure, the same way that you can put out a fire with a flamethrower.

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:01 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Kamsaki wrote:I think it can, but it needs to be a horrible, painful, morally ambiguous, long, immensely damaging and unwon one. If at the end of it the warmakers lie dead at their own hands, covered in the blood of everyone indescriminately, such that the entire world can look back at it and agree "Never Again", there will be peace. But is it a price worth paying?

The entire world may say 'Never again', but it will happen. Again. And Again. And again...

Yes, but a bloody war will mean it will be a longer time until it happens again.

by **Skirtingboard** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:03 pm

Can war be a peace maker; Of course.
Assuming you mean a war as in, two sides in armed conflict for various reasons, each trying to supress or remove the other. War is all about peace in the long term, ensuring that your side gets to live a decent quality of life. But it all depends on how you define "peace".
Peace as in everyone getting along to the extent where violence isn't breaking out everywhere is fairly easy to manage through war if one side has a straight out victory with a large majority of the victors left.

by **Skirtingboard** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:04 pm

Meldaria wrote:Sure, the same way that you can put out a fire with a flamethrower.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion Meldaria.

by **Bavin** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:05 pm

Meldaria wrote:Sure, the same way that you can put out a fire with a flamethrower.

With backfires, you can.

by **Meldaria** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:06 pm

Skirtingboard wrote:
Meldaria wrote:Sure, the same way that you can put out a fire with a flamethrower.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion Meldaria.

War doesn't bring peace. Violence will always lead to more violence. History has shown us that. I.E. Holocaust, Vietnam, Korea, Middle East, etc.

by **Skirtingboard** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:11 pm

Meldaria wrote:
Skirtingboard wrote:
Meldaria wrote:Sure, the same way that you can put out a fire with a flamethrower.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion Meldaria.

War doesn't bring peace. Violence will always lead to more violence. History has shown us that. I.E. Holocaust, Vietnam, Korea, Middle East, etc.

Violence will always be around, it's part of human nature. It's true that violence breeds violence, but excessive use of violence or the potential for it can help towards peace. Although there will always be tension. I'm not saying i believe violence is right, but just that peace cannot exist without conflict to compare it to.

by **Skirtingboard** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:12 pm

I do get your point though, without war there would be relative peace.

by **The Imperial Navy** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:14 pm

War is a part of human nature. There will always be war.

Can War Be A Peace Maker?

Who is online