View Single Post
  #54  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:30 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,234

Default

Are those countries really determined to maintain peace or is it just that they never had cause or opportunity to make war? Besides India was involved in several conflicts with Pakistan (and to a lesser extent China), I don't know enough to say if they were the defender or attacker (or if it was murky) in these conflicts.

Conversely a country can be externally peaceful but internally awful like the Soviet Union was. And before some smartass points it out, yes the Soviet Union did engage in wars of aggression but largely it kept to itself. China is another example of internal hell and relative peace outside, a better one than SU.
Anyway is a country a good country just because it only oppresses its own people? While I think it is less bad than being horrible to neighboring countries through wars of aggression and conquest it still is a horrible thing.

Lastly most of us would agree that things that happened far in the past are less relevant than ones that happened recently. So some country could have been horrible in the past but is alright now. Does that make it a bad country? A good country? A country that gets better every year it continues to strive for benevolence?
I'd say it is the last thing, for a country to be good it has to be dynamically good. It has to keep trying to be good every day, month and year. It has to be good on all accounts, not fighting wars is just one thing, look how much damage the US does through covert operations for example. Ultimately it is my belief that only good foreign relations are entirely altruistic foreign relations but that is just a pipedream in this world.
Reply With Quote