Close Topic Options

Winning A War. - Page 2

I tend to agree with the premise that if a country enters a War regardless of the reason, it has to try to win it. The country that enters a war and then gives up is destined to die quickly. War is terrible, but it is meant to be won.

War Winning

You all should also apply that on a smaller scale. If someone steals something of yours you should beat him. If you find out half way into the beating that he didn't do it you should just finish it up anyway. Because winning is the most important thing. Kill him if you have to, so you don't look weak.

And that is exactly why we have all of these foolish wars. I have to disagree with all of you on this one.

Edited: Quasar on 17th Sep, 2008 - 8:51pm

Winning A War. History & Civil Business Politics

The justness has little or nothing to do with it as Krakyn said. In todays strange world of war where if you loose you are supposed to be able to get all your stuff back is insane. If you wage war, you are putting everything you got on the line against everything the other guy has and if you win...to the victor goes the spoils and troubles that it brings. To the looser goes nothing and a loss of everything.

For instance, look at Israel. Israel's initial boarders were almost 30% of its maximum size after taking teh Sinai Penninsula from Egypt during the 6 Day War. It really doesnt matter which side of the argument you are on for this one. Ask one question...had Israel lost (justly or unjustly) would there be any Israeli Jews to talk to today? As everyone can remember, the goal was to push Israel to the Sea. This was uttered by Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Nasser's gamble cost him dearly. He actually lost the Sinai but got it back later in a peace agreement.

Some believe that the war was just. Some see it as unjust. It is just dependent on your view point. But what we cannot debate is what would have happened had Israel lost, because there would not have been a "long run" to talk about for Israel, because it would be in the sea. It would have ceased to exist on the 7th day along with all her people of the time.

Page 2 War Winning

A just war is one where the majority feel the action is a requirement. So take Hitler most felt he was a danger to their way of life so fought back against him.

All sides put every thing in it to win. For us we are fortunate as we were the victor but it took all we had to manage this. Once we hit the original border now should we have stopped?

If we had all that was gained would have been lost as they would have regrouped and push out again. Answer keep the pressure on till the country comes to its knees.

Total annihilation is the only way to win a war where your are justified to any one else or not.

If you start beating on a man and realize half way through that he is innocent guess what you have to finish the fight. Why as if you do not the other will stand and kill you as you now have offend them and they will return your force equally or with more force have no doubt. So in your little example you might not kill the thief but if you are winning you could not stop till he was beat senseless and it would be safe to do so. Amendments would have to be made after.

The part one must keep in mind is before you fully engage a person you see as an enemy you better be darn sure of your facts. Once started it could be very hazardous to try and pull out. Your opponent will not stop because you are.


It is nice if wars could be fought in a field soldiers on soldiers but that is no long the way. Imagine an army marching down on you town would you run or go grab a gun and join your troops. Men women and children can be dedicated to their country and be wiling to stand and die for it. As would they if it was a person invading their home. So as the invader are you wrong to mow them down to win your war, is it right to leave them to shoot you in the back. If you are the soldier you have a deep desire to live so you shoot them now you are a bad person but you won the war. Should you leave them get shot in the back and lose the war and die a good person? Does this answer depend if you are justified? I think the answer is you are there to win as you believed in the cause enough to be there in the first place so you do what must be done and repent after.

If engaging another in war might have political back lash that can effect the country for a generation then maybe the answer is not to engage in the first place. This is why many soldiers come home and get booed because their great leaders chose to fight a battle the general populace was against. Then to boot they at the end have no clear victory or resolution to the original issue. Why because they backed out before the goal was made. Would it be any worse if they had let the army do what was required to win and have it over with? I do not think so. Just think about Iraq and Germany. What if they would have pounded down Saddam in the first war the second would have been avoided, though at the time it would have been politically incorrect to do it.

War Winning

I don't understand this question. Since when is war just or unjust? Is there really such a thing unless we are like those jihad fanaticals thinking about 'holy wars' blowing up children and women.

Winning A War.

Perhaps the cause is more so what is just or unjust. Why are we going to fight? Is it a maniac that is threatening to dominated and kill every person on the planet or is it just to obtain the wealth that another owns. Is either one of the reasons to go to war make the war just?

Winning War. - Page 2

"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang": Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785 (B 11:16-7)