There is no peace as long as authoritarian regimes threaten democratic nations and their own peoples.
A bad peace is better than a good war.
As anyone who's ever had a war fought on their soil will tell you.
When was the last time a war has been fought on your country's soil? How many times since then has your country brought war to another's?
Your opinion might change were you on the receiving end of these adventures.
You mean a bad peace like 1939?
I'm thinking more like the bad peace of 1963, 1979, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2011 (again), need I go on?
Yes, but valuearb makes a good point— it is not always true that a bad peace is better than a good war. There are moments when timely, preemptive military intervention can avoid a more destructive conflict. (The problem is, of course, that those moments are often only obvious to us in historical retrospect.)
Re:Unmasking China's Invisible Fleet
by alextheparrot on Thursday July 23, 2020 @01:05PM
(#23929508)
> The key method to avoiding war is to spread democracy
This statement remains unsubstantiated, and is furthermore argued against by the wars originally provided in the general context of the quote.
Re:Unmasking China's Invisible Fleet
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday July 23, 2020 @12:38PM
(#23929174)
Yes and no. Yes, there is not real peace, and there is not peace even within such nations. That difference (between authoritarian and non-authoritarian) matters.
But no, even with authoritarian regimes in existence, there is a difference between "shooting war" and "no shooting war". That difference matters, too.
I think the “spreading democracy” mindset is wholly unsubstantiated, as most of the wars you mentioned were predicated on either preserving or spreading democracy. If we need war to prevent war, it seems that there can be no peace.