Is it true that a nation ceases fighting once it has been dealt a terrific blow?

Question

I seem to find a lot of examples of this. England, France, Italy, US, Austria, Russia, Germany all of them fought fiercely in World War I. But because none of them were content with the bloody results of the previous war England, Poland, France, Austria, US, Soviet Union, China, Italy, Japan and n**i Germany fought an even costly WW II and all of them emerged defeated. Since then most of them have abandoned war mongering and have actually taken steps to avoid any war like situations save for the Soviet Union and US. After the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia has been mostly on track.

Don't you think after the 4000+ deaths in Iraq (I don't know the Afghanistan figures) it's time that US stop fighting too?

Can someone tell me the exact reason for going into Iraq, because I don't seem to see any? I am not asking this sarcastically, I really don't know the reason.

Answer 1

Sure.

Depends on who's getting the blow.

With Check-mate !

Revealation 16.15

What do you think?

Answer 2

The reason the Americans and British gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, something which Saddam repeatedly denied.

Answer 3

I suggest that you do a better job of learning your history.

China invaded Tibet, Vietnam and India, and fought the US in Korea.

France fought several colonial wars after WWII.

England fought numerous conflicts.  Their war with Argentina is just one example.

Now as to the current wars, before you ask us to surrender - please tell us what consequences of this surrender you are willing to accept.

Answer 4

Your logic is escapable...

Answer 5

Yes, I can tell you.  Do a search on Yahoo Answers.  You'll find this questioned answer 5 billion times.  It's five years after the fact.  Everyone should know the answer by now.

And no, we shouldn't become like Europe.

I did a search for you.  

Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors

discovered the existence of a surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.