[Proctor]

Tell me, how do you think a diplomat/statesman sees war? My history teacher said that they always try to achieve peace, and someitmes go to war to create a more lasting peace. I said that if it were true everyone would be seeking peace and there just wouldn't be any wars.

My theory is that war is just another tool of the statesman. Peace is only what he will use to enforce his victory afterwards. His real goal is to improve his own situation. This does not neccessarily mean corruption, just that if he is doing something for the good of the people, it is because it will directly benefit him or he simply wants to be remembered as a great leader.

[Olympas]

Depends on the statesman. They are different just like other people. Some will not send their countries to war no matter what. Others will do it for mere petty political games (like Margaret Thatcher at the Falklands). Sometimes wars really do bring a more lating peace and prosperity - like with the Roman Empire (alright, not in Germany, but everywhere else) - and sometimes they obviously don't - like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

You can't generalise, but in general I would say of course war can be a political tool.

[redstar2000]

Most people who become "statesmen" or diplomats have some training in history. They understand, at least dimly, that the risks of war are great...as are the rewards of victory.

Those who start a war and win it are "honored" by a chorus of servile "historians" as "glorious". Those who start a war and lose it are inevitably labeled stupid and/or evil.

There's the story told about German views of Hitler after the end of World War II. "Hitler ended unemployment and that was good." "Then, he started the war, and that was not so good." "Then, he lost the war...and that was unforgivable!"

For bourgeois historians, that really says it all.