Quote:
Originally Posted by iFarazAhmed
However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years!
|
It wasn't merely added. It is actually the topic. Great Nations win without fighting. Now you can take a position either for it or against it and proceed with your essay. You can also take a middle ground. Now 'winning' and 'fighting' and 'Great' are vague terms. You have to define them. What's a win? Economical, technological, scientific, geo-political, militaristic win?? And what's a 'fight'? A brawl in the club? A battle? A war or just any struggle?
If we interpret fight as struggle, then the only arguments that are strong go against the topic. No Nation becomes great without striving for it. And what is a great nation? What parameters are needed to gauge greatness? It must have a big economy, its economic indicators should be high enough, standard of living should be above the world average. Finland fits the profile. But how about geo-political influence? A say in the world affairs? For that you need Armies, technology, alliances etc. then the United States comes to mind. How did it become a great nation then? After winning the second world war, and then the cold war. So economic, scientific, technological, militaristic struggle or fight is necessary for a nation to become Great.