"The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war"
I am responding to this prompt because the book did not change my views.
I would like to approach this prompt in two different ways: taken out of context and placed in context with our modern world. This statement in and of itself is one that is contradictory. One cannot be peaceful by being prepared for war. It is a conflict of meaning. With the literal idea of peace in mind this prompt is entirely false. However, when taking into account the world we live today, a world of constant conflict, a country that achieved complete peace would not last long. The whole world would have to agree to peace and eliminate all violence, hate and war in all of its forms. This task is impossible. The only way a country or political body could be in a semi-permanent peaceful state would be to prepare for war by having proper defenses and an inactive army.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Justine Freeman
Yes, the book did not change my views either.
Though I absolutly agree with your explanation.
I agree with you, that the only way for peace is to prepare for war with an inactive army, but if you look at the world today. There is war in Iraq but peace (no wars, but not really all peace) in the U.S. although this statement can be turned around, without war there wouldn't be any peace, just conflict
-David Bui
I agree. Without already being a huge superpower (and therefore ready for war) or a totally insignificant country (doesn't exist, everybody has something that somebody else wants), it would seem that you are correct and that this is an unrealistic statement in the war torn world in which we live.
However, certain countries which are powerful in other ways, money for example, are able to remain neutral in many wars due to their value to every country.
Eric Lombardo
Post a Comment