Abatement in the hostility of one's enemies must never be thought to signify they have been won over. It only means that one has ceased to constitute a threat.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
This bloody past suggests to us that enemies cease hostilities only when they are battered enough to acknowledge that there is no hope in victory - and thus that further resistance means only useless sacrifice.
In today's interdependent world, a threat to one becomes a menace to all. And no state can defeat these challenges and threats alone.
To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.
It goes without saying that when survival is threatened, struggles erupt between peoples, and unfortunate wars between nations result.
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes... can no longer be of concern to great powers alone.
But the threat posed by the radical Islamists represents an unusual conflict, unlike any experienced by our nation before: we face an enemy that is not a state.
We proved that the aggressors do not necessarily emerge as the victors, but we learned that the victors do not necessarily win peace.
There was a very convincing argument made that the extremists have won and the aggression is now supported by the majority, therefore fighting until surrender was the only alternative.
The real enemy can always be met and conquered, or won over. Real antagonism is based on love, a love which has not recognized itself.
Aggression is inherently destructive of relationships. People and ideologies are pitted against each other, believing that in order to survive, they must destroy the opposition.
No opposing quotes found.