War may bring temporary peace by subduing the opponent, but it often leads to long-term consequences such as destruction, loss of life, and ongoing conflict. Genuine and lasting peace is usually achieved through diplomacy, negotiation, and reconciliation between conflicting parties. War should be a last resort, as the cost is usually too high.
It is an antonym of war. I'm not sure what you mean... the word peace can't be an antonym unless it's compared to its opposite, such as war.
War is not the solution for peace. Peace can be achieved through diplomacy, communication, and mutual understanding. Resorting to war often leads to destruction and loss of life, making it counterproductive to the goal of establishing lasting peace.
yes war is necessary for peace. The people who say war never solved anything have obviously never heard of slavery, nazism, or merceless dictatorships...so i guess the answer to the question is sometimes. Guess now the question would be who should determine when war is necessary...
The verb of peacefulness is peacefully. As in "to peacefully do something". The verb meaning "to bring peace" is "pacify".
You can't always have peace by being peaceful, sometimes you have to fight a war to obtain peace, because no matter how peaceful you may be, you can still be invaded by some other less peaceful country. War is the opposite of peace, so it is paradoxical that you might have to use war to obtain peace. No matter how much you dislike war, even if you think it is absolutely the worst possible thing, you may still have to fight one. World War One was described at the time as "the war to end all wars" although this tragically proved to be quite wrong. We try to create peace by defeating the people who want war, yet even when we do so, there always seems to be a new reason for war. So, we can observe that even though we sometimes have to go to war in order to have peace, that is not a complete solution. We need a more evolved form of human civilization, in order to have a lasting peace. But we may have to go to war, on the way to achieving that objective. And in the nuclear age, war is more dangerous than ever before. It is possible that we may someday have a war that is so destructive that it will finally result in the peace of the grave, for everyone. That too will be a paradoxical outcome, a war that everybody loses.
Eventually.
To bring peace not war.
Type your answer here... Nothing. A war over territory like the Russo-Japanese War never brings peace, it just disrupts it.
To bring peace not war.
No- the war was still going on when Truman left office.
Albert Einstein
To cause the US to negotiate with the Confederacy for a peace treaty to end the war. So long as all battles were fought in the South, there was little incentive to seek peace. The intent was to bring the war home to the Union.
The Korean War brought an Armistice. An Armistice is a truce.
After the war europeans decided to start the european union(EU) in order to maintain peace.
it was held in Paris and Versailles
Well the US can be blamed as a major influence in causing the civil war in Cambodia so why not ask how they destroyed peace in cambodia instead.
In order to maintain peace, nothing can bring discord. Attacks on your homeland can bring discord, unless you can successfully defend the homeland. Preparing for war allows you to defend yourself. Therefore, preparing for war insures no discord from attacks, and thus, insures that peace is maintained.