Thursday, February 14, 2008

Jessica K - "The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war."

I do agree with this statement. No matter how much we want to believe that a country can be at peace always, we know it's not true. You might say if a country isn't at war, then there is peace. Wars have taken aways so many lives throughout history. But if a country isn't prepared, others will take advantage and attack it, then there will be war. It has to be strong and be prepared to show others that they can't mess with them. Only then will you be able to have peace.

11 comments:

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your statement. When you say "it has to be strng and be prepared to show others that they can't mess with them", that isn't a very good beginning for peace. A country showing that they have a lot of power isn't grounds for peace. Peace is not about being strong so another country will not attack you. It is about trying to solve the problems that you have.

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I agree Jessica, why would you leave yourself and your country an open target? If a country has anything of value to anyone (land, wealth, resources, etc), then someone else is going to envy it. Having nothing to fight with will just provide more incentive to invade, as nothing can stop them. Or, maybe you're on the other end of the bargain and YOU want to take something from someone else. You'll have no resources to invade or conquer anyone. Having a ready army, navy, and air force is necessary for stopping fights and starting fights, especially in today's modern age.

-Max David

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I agree with Jessica's statement. If you are not prepared to have war, then others are going to start a war with you. Either way, there is no peace. And throughout history, after wars, there are always some type of treaty to sign. And what does that bring? Peace between the two countries for a period of time.

Melissa Wong

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I definitely agree with your statement, but not completely. For a country like America, being powerful is a necessity to avoiding war because we have enemies for lots of reasons, old and new. But Canada, for example, is not a strong country at all, and for that reason have maintained peace for a very long time. Canada has made a point of not making friends or enemies, as compared to America, which has made alliances and joined world wars. For most countries being prepared for war is necessary for peace because of our past and grudges left behind, but a long-standing reputation of staying uninvolved can also be effective.
~Audrey

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

how can we define peace for our country? i understand your point. but do we need to have a war in order to recieve peace or can we just live day by day without fights and violence to call that peace? can the world or country start out with peace?

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

oosp forgot to put name for the recent comment

-Lily

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

The first comment was posted by Eliza Cohn (5th period)

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I agree with Jessica's stand on this statement. A country must be prepared and ready for any situation. To ensure peace, the country has to be ready to defend itself at any moment, which means being ready for war. I understand what Eliza is saying about Jessica's statement. A country opposing fear does not start peace but fear can start respect and respect leads to understanding and agreement which leads to peace.

-Amanda Jones

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I agree with both Jessica and Audrey's responses. It depends on which country we're talking about.
Canada and the United States is a very good example.

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I would have to disagree with this statement only because they’re other to have peace than to have war. Not saying that I don’t want security, because security a country should always have. To say that they only way we can have peace by war is not true to me at all. War would just create more of a disaster, and peace would be hard to get.

-Keira Weldon

Deep Thoughts - 1984 said...

I disagree with part of Jessica's statement: war and peace are not mutually exclusive. For example, currently in this country we are both at war and at peace. We are at war in Iraq, as everyone surely knows, but we are also at peace internally. There are no dangerous riots in the streets, and I don't have any reason to be afraid for my life while i'm either at home or out in the city.

But I agree that if a country doesn't appear strong to those outside it, it will be vulnerable to war. A good example of that is our current war in Iraq: Iraq didn't appear strong enough to be a threat to us, so we went ahead and created war. If Iraq had seemed more threatening, like Iran, we probably would have held back and thus Iraq's peace would have been preserved.

Annika