Any example of recent times?

@Ozia you wrote in your original post that nations do not win a war, armies do. Can you enlighten us how? Because as far as I know when an army goes to war the whole country does not just army. An army is supported and controlled by the political forces, civilians work for it. That is particularly true of total wars like WW1 and WW2 when the whole economies were made into war economies to support the war effort. Also to support a big and modern army there needs to be a big economy that can sustain it. Big economy of the whole country or nation not just the army.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

So now it's Nation vs Country Vs Army

There is a difference between the terms nation, state, and country, even though the words are often used interchangeably.

Country and State are synonymous terms that both apply to self-governing political entities.
A nation is a group of people who share the same culture, language, institutions, religion, and history.

In urdu,the word "qoum" is used for nation and "mulk" for country.whenever a country wins a war,we say wo mulk jeet gaya. we never say k wo qoum jeet gaye. Where the winning of the country can be gauged by its winning a war,the winning of a nation or qoum is referred to its progress over time. Japan,germany,turkey,malaysia are winning nations although they have never won a war(after WWII).

I dnt disagree with you when you say that when an army goes to war,the whole country goes to war.As I have said in my previous argument,even if the word country was used instead of army,the meaning u r inferring could be derived but as the examiner has used nation,it gives a completely different meaning.

I have tried to articulate my stance in the best possible way.It is upto you to infer the meaning now.

I think literal translation causes misunderstanding and it isn't a good idea to use it. I agree that 'nation' could be used in senses other than country or state as in Kurd nation or Baloch nation but the word is also used in the sense of country, in fact overwhelmingly . Google dictionary agrees:
a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
"the world's leading industrialized nations"
synonyms: country, state, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, empire, republic, confederation, federation, commonwealth, power, superpower, polity, domain;

Therefore, it shouldn't be a source of confusion

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

It is not maths and I cannot convince you by giving an argument like 2+2=4.
you will keep on coming with weak or strong counter arguments and the discussion will go on.
As I said it is up to you now to infer the meaning...

We're just discussing. As you said earlier reading our discussion before 'keep it up' so I'm keeping it up. Have I written anything wrong? in my post?

But I'm confused when did I give weak arguments or counter-arguments? :P

I'm inferring as it is written and to clarify it you're still alive and there We can ask you

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

By the way India actually won a war against Pakistan, occupied its eastern wing and then severed it creating a new country Bangladesh. If that's not winning I don't know what else is.

And that happened after world war 2

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

I think I have answered your question in my previous comment.I mentioned the words nation and country are different although they are used in the same sense most of the times.You are saying that they are same.we cannot agree on this point as I have no argument to make you believe this.That is why I said that we we should stop discussing it.
I think it was a weak argument from your side..

U are right,the purpose of this thread is discussion and it is useful for both of us whether we agree or not.My bad..:P

coming to your last thread, who says india is a great nation?

I think I have said the same thing that nation and country are used in the same sense most of the times and for that I have given a google dictionary definition. I did not make it up by myself. You can check out other references yourself. You can also see the usage of this word.

Does quoting a dictionary definition make a weak argument? No. But literal translation does make a weak argument.

I'll tell you why literal translation is a bad idea: Supporse America has won a war and a headline of a newspaper says: Amreeki Qoum ki fatah.

See? In every language there are some phrases that just don't go well.
Either they are winning nations or winning countries or winning states it doesn't make a difference. Any word can be used:

Japan, Germany, Turkey and Malaysia are winning countries although they have never won a war.

Does it sound incorrect in any sense? Even if I use it in 'progress over time' sense?

I have given a dictionary definition and you're making an argument on how you feel to be correct. Still I made a weak argument and you a strong one based on your feelings. If I am wrong can you please give some reference or source on its usage.

Here is a quote from your original post:


How can nations not win a war? Countries or armies can win wars but nations cannot? Because we don't usually say in Urdu: Woh qaum jeet gayi but say Woh mulk jeet gaya? That's a language peculiarity. But we can say Yeh us qaum ki jang mai fatah hai.
Use the word 'fatah' and your whole argument tumbles down.

Now coming to your second rational point:

Ever heard of circular argument? That's a logical fallacy which is used in your this statement. You're assuming the conclusion. I actually explained circular argument fallacy in fallacies thread. You can check it out.

Now let's check your assumption: Nations who win by fighting cannot be considered as great.

Early Islamic Empire. By your reasoning it must also have low moral ground and cannot be considered great.

Let's see some of your examples:
Germany which was erstwhile West and East Germany. Engaged in cold war with each other and rivals the United States and the Soviet Union.
Also check out how many German soldiers were deployed in Afghanistan.

South Korea: Rivalry with North Korea with which it has gone to war. One of the highest defence budgets in the world: It ranks 12th I guess.

China: It's constant military bullying in East and South China Sea. It went to war with India over border disputes.

Turkey: After massacring Armenians and crushing Kurds' rights and recently supporting rebels in Syria it really has a high moral ground.

How are these Great countries any better than India?


If your approach is rational you can justify yourself. The point is not convincing me but justifying the argument. That's just like justifying 2+2=4.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)