posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:18 AM
Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
Depend of the scale of war,if the war will be extended then they will be forced to sign and respect a peace treaty.
why would they want to sign peace treaties and even if they did why would the others trust them to honour the treaty
They could as well refrain from launching a first attack. No need for a peace treaty.
I think we should ask first those who will be bombed what is their opinion about that,if they want to die just because someone think there
must be death to achieve peace.
Once they see they too can face death and destruction at home, all their adventures will come to an end.
Since we are talking about a scenario where the West launches the first attack, do you expect them to ask those they intend to bomb first whether they
would like to die for the reasons, whatever they are, for the West to launch the attack? If not, I am not sure why anyone should ask the Westerners
who will die in a retaliatory
West doesn't attack anyone who has the capability to retaliate and hurt them on their home turf. So once every possible target of the West achieves
that capability, there would be peace
ETA: I care less about peace and more about justice. The plan I stated was in defence of justice, It also achieves peace in the short term, your
objective. So I mentioned it. If the only choices are continued injustice and the annihilation of the globe, I would prefer the latter and so do
edit on 18-1-2012 by Observor because: (no reason given)