Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
MUAMMAR GADDAFI DEFEATED
Posts
kentona
View playlists
Close
Make sure this little chat stays civil, guys. I don't want to be the douchebag who locks a topic about a douchebag :P
author=some guy
He wasnt French? Well he was born in land wich was under French rule, but he wasnt a fully fledged Frenchie...you know what I mean.
Dude was a French national and he led, and fought and ruled France. He's French.
Who calls the shots around in UN and NATO ? Remember generalizing is a friend, yeah like I want to write out every single soldier who was participating.
Actually Europe asked us to participate, not the other way around.
You know what they say, what comes around goes around.
No I have yet to see how stopping a megalomanical, genocidal dictator and his rampaging military has bit the collective world in its ass yet. You realize that the entire world, almost literally every single country on the planet (who wasn't an Axis power) united to stop the Axis powers rite
The key word is HELPED, it was not their war.
It is rather common historical knowledge that we would have not have won our independence without foreign aid and intervention. It just would not have happened.
It seems that your grasp of history and facts is tenuous. I am not trying to be a douche like it was mentioned before, but come on, straight up, dude.
author=soniXauthor=KingArthurlol, how is that peace? That's called genocide.And how in the hell you can have peace trough war, thats like putting out fire with alcohol...Not impossible to accomplish, you just need to eradicate all your enemies.
(Not trying to be a douche, just thought I should point it out)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peace
Specifically, these two definitions:
1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.By eradicating all your enemies in a war, you are freeing yourself from any future "strife" and entering yourself in an everlasting "normal, nonwarring condition" with regards to those enemies.
...
5. cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.
And yes, eradicating all your enemies is indeed genocide. And yes, it will result in peace.
A real world example anyone can relate to is smallpox. We eradicated smallpox and as a result we've had lasting peace with regards to that offensive disease. An even more relatable example is our very own Immune System. The scale may be different, but the principle idea is the same.
Bonehead11
170
author=kentona
"bahaha the french military is awesome if you ignore that germans conquered France without major resistance and in 6 weeks!"
author=Feldschlacht IV
literally every single country on the planet (who wasn't an Axis power) united to stop the Axis powers rite
It seems that your grasp of history and facts is tenuous.
so... one defeat discounts all other successes? Not sure if I follow your logic here.
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
Dyhalto
7536
author=KingArthurAnd how in the hell you can have peace trough war, thats like putting out fire with alcohol...Not impossible to accomplish, you just need to eradicate all your enemies.
There's something wrong with this statement :X
Fundamentally it sounds right, but you have to remember that at the source of every large movement or organization is a collection of individuals, and it's usually a handful of those individuals who coerce the whole group into a war-mongering frenzy. Most often, the individuals inciting the war have something to gain out of it. Maybe they want the enemy's land/wealth, or they own arms factories and want to sell weapons, or maybe they're just paranoid and delusional about assassins and chicanery.
Even if you were to win the war and obliterate your 'enemies' completely, those individuals would probably just seek out a new enemy. After all, they got away with it the first time.
Bonehead11
170
author=kentona
so... one defeat discounts all other successes? Not sure if I follow your logic here.
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
What? One defeat? French military history is full of defeats.Its the other way around, exception that proves the rule. French are "lovers" not "fighters" its plain and simple. And no I am not bandwagoning, I am just stating the facts.
author=Bonehead11...while conveniently ignoring some of the facts, like say Napoleon.author=kentonaWhat? One defeat? French military history is full of defeats.Its the other way around, exception that proves the rule. French are "lovers" not "fighters" its plain and simple. And no I am not bandwagoning, I am just stating the facts.
so... one defeat discounts all other successes? Not sure if I follow your logic here.
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
Bonehead11
170
author=kentonaauthor=Bonehead11...while conveniently ignoring some of the facts, like say Napoleon.author=kentonaWhat? One defeat? French military history is full of defeats.Its the other way around, exception that proves the rule. French are "lovers" not "fighters" its plain and simple. And no I am not bandwagoning, I am just stating the facts.
so... one defeat discounts all other successes? Not sure if I follow your logic here.
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
Yes we are ignoring it by talking about it...makes sense.
Actually France used to be one of the major world military powers, Bonehead. And my previous statement still applies, even though France lost, the stoll contributed to the war effort, you dummy.
Bonehead11
170
author=Feldschlacht IV
Actually France used to be one of the major world military powers, Bonehead. And my previous statement still applies, even though France lost, the stoll contributed to the war effort, you dummy.
Even when they were used to be "major military power", they yet still lost many wars,many colonies, territories wich even adds to the factor. Just let this topic die or get back on topic.
I think , in the course of history, France has won and lost hundreds of wars and battles, as any other country (England, Spain, Austria,Holland), loosing their colonies happened to all those countries, who from empires became simple countries (an unavoidable and good thing), as for the two last world wars, I think no one single european country (i.e. relatively small) could have won the war by itself.
Edit : the fact is for the German invasion, the French wanted to avoid that war at all costs (after WWI) and thus were very badly prepared.
Edit : the fact is for the German invasion, the French wanted to avoid that war at all costs (after WWI) and thus were very badly prepared.
author=Dyhaltoauthor=KingArthurThere's something wrong with this statement :XAnd how in the hell you can have peace trough war, thats like putting out fire with alcohol...Not impossible to accomplish, you just need to eradicate all your enemies.
Fundamentally it sounds right, but you have to remember that at the source of every large movement or organization is a collection of individuals, and it's usually a handful of those individuals who coerce the whole group into a war-mongering frenzy. Most often, the individuals inciting the war have something to gain out of it. Maybe they want the enemy's land/wealth, or they own arms factories and want to sell weapons, or maybe they're just paranoid and delusional about assassins and chicanery.
Even if you were to win the war and obliterate your 'enemies' completely, those individuals would probably just seek out a new enemy. After all, they got away with it the first time.
You're overcomplicating the situation.
What I'm talking of is simple: There's two sides. Conflict results between the two sides for one reason or another. One side wants to end the conflict and move on. One side thus proceeds to eliminate the other side. Peace ensues as there is nothing left to cause conflict. Simple and to the point, right?
author=Bonehead11author=kentonaWhat? One defeat? French military history is full of defeats.Its the other way around, exception that proves the rule. French are "lovers" not "fighters" its plain and simple. And no I am not bandwagoning, I am just stating the facts.
so... one defeat discounts all other successes? Not sure if I follow your logic here.
(and it is plain to me that you are just bandwagoning on "lol french military surrender monkeys" mentality)
If Napolean can't convince you, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, William the Conqueror, and the countless medieval French knights would like to have a word with you.
Fine, yes achieving peace by eradicating 'smallpox' will obviously be a good thing. But when that 'notion' is applied to a war, it is not a 'good' peace.Neither I, nor the initial question, made any distinction between any "good" or "bad" peace. The question asked simply whether wars could achieve peace and I answered in the affirmative with sound reasoning and real world cases of it actually happening.
Let me use a simple analogy of a simple war involving two people. Hypothetically, let's say there's two kids in high school, one called Ben and another KingArthur. Ben doesn't like KingArthur for some reason so he punches him in the face. A teacher comes and tells the two to make peace with each other, so KingArthur shoots him in the face, thus 'eradicating him'.
KingArthur just achieved 'peace' through his eradication. This is not a good 'peace'.
Also, what exactly is the difference between eradicating smallpox and eradicating "Ben"? I don't see it unless you're willing to go into the area of double standards.
Also what you said condradicts definition 3 of your listed definitions , ie. "a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations."The contradiction (assuming it is a contradiction) is a non-issue as I have already satisfied at least one of the definitions for "peace" that I provided.
If all nations were to follow KingArthurs idea of peace, then that would cause World War 3 to break out as all nations are trying to 'genocide' their enemies, eventually leading to most of the world's population being wiped out.It would certainly be one of many ways to achieve peace (world peace in this case).
EDIT: It seems like you agree that wars can achieve peace, so I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about.
Dyhalto
7536
author=KingArthur
It would certainly be one of many ways to achieve peace (world peace in this case).
You will never achieve peace that way.
The point of my original reply to you was that war is started for a reason, and as long as the reason persists, new wars will continue to be ignited. If you want to simplify for convenience with "If you kill them all then you have peace", then "if you ask mom for pie then you have pie". But you don't get eternal pie. You need to start your own pie factory. Or something.
You will never achieve peace that way.
You can, since there's likely nothing left to wage war with.
The point of my original reply to you was that war is started for a reason, and as long as the reason persists, new wars will continue to be ignited.
If you take out your enemy (the "reason" for the war), why start any new ones?
