If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It does, the history of the human race proves that. As does nature.
What is the bottom line?
I didn't say all the wars won
Civil War would be a good starting point, plus we could look at some of the English won wars against the celts.
But yeah, look more recently and it's about self determination or about power over a nation and it's people. Part of that is also the struggle for resources, which in themselves provide the ability of self detemination...
The bottom line is, if you aren't willing to use force and your "enemy" is, then you will lose. That simple.
yeah they would in actual wars of self defence, but not all wars/invasions are like that
it's an oversimplification, in most cases around the world, a country having a solid standing and reserve army would be comfortably safe
If there were no armed forces, no one would have any force to invade/affect the rights of humans in other countries... so armed forces and war wouldn't be needed to fight for these rights? So what are the positive of war?
Saying your country would be safe for having an armed forces is still not a valid reason in my eyes, it comes back down to fighting your own self-made enemy.
Greed is usually that cause of war, that doesn't mean it's the reason that both sides fight. However, if you think resources aren't worth fighting for then perhaps you should try living without oil and see how my freedom and power of self determination you have then...
But there are, have always been and will always be armed forces. To suggest otherwise is naive at best.
Do you think that there weren't tribal wars back in earliest civilisation?
Well, without that we wouldn't have the lifestyle we have now. But I'm not daft enough to ignore that every war has it's loser. Look at the UK and our former empire. From a UK perspective the wars we fought back then brought us to the power and lifestyle we all take for granted now. For those we ruled, well, it's wasn't so great was it?
Wouldn't it have been better for them if they'd been able to effectively defend themselves?
Self made suggest that diplomacy would work every time. If you are willing to accept every demand another country makes then it does. If you aren't then what next, what will you do when diplomacy fails?
If diplomacy was to fail then they don't have anything to attack us with, neither us to attack them. So diplomacy wouldn't fail until something was worked out, even if it was negative for the other country? Diplomacy seems to fail more because one country doesn't like what was negotiated, so they go in with force to make a point.
Perhaps I am just naive, but it still doesn't answer my questions.
Diplomacy can have it's place, but when CountryA wants what CountryB has, and CountryB won't give it up...
Most countries only have a defence force, some see an offensive force as being the best form of defence!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10529110.stm