"And my comment on having to defeat an enemy who wants you destroyed in order to make a lasting peace isn't a "right wing view," it's the truth. If you have any historical exceptions, please let me know."
Happens all the time. Those are the situations which don't turn into wars. The two Koreas are at "peace" in the sense they are not at war. They did not manage to destroy each other. And, if left alone, they could put it together.
The Greeks and Turks on Cyprus have come to a detente. Tensions, yes, and "peace", too. The folks in Bangladesh wanted to do in the Pakistanis, and the Irish would have gladly seen the English disappear into the sea. Spain would be delighted to eradicate every Brit from Gibraltar.
The US and Russia. Didn't seem to take a war to resolve differences with the "evil empire".
I suppose one could say that in each of these cases there was no unalterable desire to obliterate the other because they didn't. By definition. Then your statement is when I want to obliterate someone there is no coming to peace.
But for most folks there is a chance at resolution. Unless they are hellbent on ethnic cleansing. The US was not willing to tolerate Native Americans, and only grudgingly let them survive.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to Re: Weapons, winning, losing.
Resolution
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.
- Re: Flight 93 and the White House building.
- picky picky picky
- Re: Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.