Peace for the sake of peace or War to win peace?
By Ravi10101
@Ravi10101 (38)
Sri Lanka
November 17, 2006 2:28am CST
I'd like to know people's ideas of whether a country should go to war in order to achieve peace or to just sit back and wait preserving peace for the sake of peace no matter what cost to the people.
4 responses
@krisantapapa (820)
• Philippines
17 Nov 06
We don't need war just to achieve peace coz there's always a revenge. If people are concerned to each and every one we could achieve peace.War is a results of greediness in power and money and to their own interest only.
@suryachalla (1369)
• India
17 Nov 06
Throughout history we see that wars were fought with the intention of preseving peace, yet war have given rise to further wars! Man is not content with eternal peace. He gets restless after a prolonged period of peace, as history shows.
Anyway, I believe that wars are necessary to win peace. Just sitting back or showing brotherly feeling to our neighbour may result in being exploited, as happened in the case when China swallowed Tibet (from India).
@comradevic (230)
• Nigeria
17 Nov 06
Two wrongs cnnot make a right. You can't use fire to quench fire. I think everyone should preseve peace. War cannot bring peace, instead untold suffering and hardship upon the mases. Peace dialogue achieves something much more better and enhances international relationship between countries.
