What is worth fighting for

[Moliere]

So was Germany justified in going to war in WWII?

I've always thought that America entering WWI caused WWII. Before America entered the war it was essentially a stalemate. Both sides were low on resources and moral. The war would have ended with a stalemate treaty where all parties agree to go home. Instead America enters the war and allows England and France to crush Germany and install the terrible Versailles Treaty.

This chain of events leads to the rise of Hitler and thereby WWII.

I agree that war is justified when I am directly attacked. My job is to stop the attacker so I can go about my peaceful business.

 

[gnome]

From Dave Barry (approximately):

World War I: A massive conflict that changed the face of Europe, converting it from a continent full of nations that hated each other, to a continent full of nations that REALLY hated each other.

 

[Generalist]

Conflict

Generally, no, I don't believe that there is anything worth fighting for.

I think that mostly people are fighting for reasons they don't understand. I believe in a universe of consequences. Sociopaths exist because of the circumstances that have created them, including social, political, economical, psychological, and possibly even physiological. Sociopaths and wars are symptoms of other issues, which are not being adequately dealt with. When something that one would typically term as "worth fighting over/for/about" occurs, it is important to question why it has occured, what was the chain of events which precipitated the situation? The reason that this question is important, is because if we recognize the factors involved, we can be vigilant for them in the future. Prevention is better than a cure.

The genocide being carried out by the Nazis was worth stopping once it was happening. Sometimes a cure is necesary. It is a *crying* shame that it ever got to that. There is no excuse for it getting to that. Detecting the symptoms of these things before they become a full blown disease requiring a cure should be high in the priority lists of every man, woman, child and organisation on the planet. Prevention is better than a cure.

Every person in the world has choices to make, picking up the gun is your choice. Choose not to do it. Encourage others to choose not to do it. Help others to improve their standards of living so that they have less reason to do it.

Of course, conflict is only one of a great many serious issues that we are faced with. I do not propose that I have all the solutions or even that I'm correct. I am speaking my feelings on the subject. I do also think and feel that it is through co-operation with our fellow humans that we will be able to arrive at satisfactory solutions to the many issues we are faced with. Conflict and competition are not co-operation.

End.

 

[RandFan]

Never mind! Just see Randfan's sig...

It "bears" repeating.

 

[bigred]

Re: Conflict

Generally, no, I don't believe that there is anything worth fighting for.

(snip)

The genocide being carried out by the Nazis was worth stopping once it was happening. Sometimes a cure is necesary.

er please make up your mind.

 

[Zep]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

Argument by homily as well as authority, all by a level of indirection? Well, that's new...

So Mr Mill said this. Sorry, but this is simply a series of subjective judgements to support the value he personally placed on various attributes he cherished, making us aware of what he thought of people who disagreed with him. That does not make him right, just opinionated. You are simply agreeing with his opinion - that's fine too. But I don't, so where does that leave us?

 

[gnome]

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stuart Mill

There is truth here, but also a fallacy. This quotation assumes that someone that is unwilling to bring violence to others, finds nothing more important than his own personal safety.

I remind that one can place oneself in jeapordy for a cause, without committing violence on others. Unwillingness to fight does not mean unwillingness to resist or to sacrifice.

 

[bigred]

gnome, while what you say is technically true, in many cases non-violent resistance simply will not work (WW II being the most obvious example). But your point of distinguishing between "war" and "fighting for" is certainly worth noting.

 

[Generalist]

Re: Re: Conflict

er please make up your mind.

Well done!! I love it when people take my words out of their original context and twist them to mean something else.

*yawn*

The first sentance you quote is general, the second sentance you quote is specific, the poll question is general.

 

[gnome]

gnome, while what you say is technically true, in many cases non-violent resistance simply will not work (WW II being the most obvious example). But your point of distinguishing between "war" and "fighting for" is certainly worth noting.

More like distinguishing between "fighting" and "resisting", but we're on the same page. Thanks.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I agree, and I suggest that it would make sense to all concerned that the potential threat of war should be enough force the evaluation of as many of these variables and combinations of same to see if they can prevent it. Perhaps all nations could get together in one place and sort out their problems before stuff gets out of hand... Oh, don't bother - that doesn't seem to be a highly regarded option in some influential circles...

I agree with this too. Of all the things we could be doing with our lives, livelihoods and environment, war has to be the most negative.

True enough, but at some point, say, oh, I donno, maybe after twelve years of trying other avenues only to have those avenues exploited for profit and corruption, isn't it time to do something?

Maybe your meeting place has some possibilities if it's administrator doesn't fancy himself to be President of the World.

 

[Zep]

True enough, but at some point, say, oh, I donno, maybe after twelve years of trying other avenues only to have those avenues exploited for profit and corruption, isn't it time to do something?

How about removing the avenues of exploitation for profit and corruption for a start? Oh sorry, that would most likely be anti-capitalist (i.e. pro-socialist by definition), I fear, and thus definitely to be avoided at all costs in some circles. To sensitive politically also.

I remain amazed at times at the thinking-inside-the-box usually used today to solve problems. Many the great leaders never did - they weren't scared to be creative to solve their problems, and not necessarily just follow recipes.

Maybe your meeting place has some possibilities if it's administrator doesn't fancy himself to be President of the World.

Maybe it would be better if the heads of EVERY NATION didn't fancy themselves as President of the World either. Egos, ignorance, and politics...

 

[Kodiak]

But I don't, so where does that leave us?

Well, maybe with an hypothetical?

Would you have served and fought alongside your countrymen in World War II?

 

[Zep]

Well, maybe with an hypothetical?

Would you have served and fought alongside your countrymen in World War II?

Short hypothetical answer: Yes, but in field ambulance.

However I was just old enough to be eligible to be drafted for Vietnam, before the draft was abolished and we pulled out. I was getting ready to (a) resist the draft, and (b) volunteer for non-combatant service instead. Naive thinking, I know now, but we are all intense at that age.

Interestingly, only a short period before that I had volunteered for the Royal Australian Air Force (we actually had a few planes then!). I was not accepted, being asthmatic, and then Vietnam and "The Dismissal" changed my mind on many things military and politics.

 

[gnome]

True enough, but at some point, say, oh, I donno, maybe after twelve years of trying other avenues only to have those avenues exploited for profit and corruption, isn't it time to do something?

Something, yes. Abandon a tradition of not starting a wars, only finishing them? Don't think so.

 

[Giz]

Short hypothetical answer: Yes, but in field ambulance.

So you accept that WW2 was worth fighting, and that you'd aid the war effort in some capacity... you just wouldn't want to get your own hands dirty - whilst knowing that someone will have to it anyway?

I dont understand that from a moral perspective...

 

[Kodiak]

Short hypothetical answer: Yes, but in field ambulance.

So, you would serve, but not fight. That's a fine distinction to make, but I guess that's not unexpected with such a complex subject. I can't say I agree with you, but thank you for the response.

 

[bigred]

So you accept that WW2 was worth fighting, and that you'd aid the war effort in some capacity... you just wouldn't want to get your own hands dirty - whilst knowing that someone will have to it anyway?

I dont understand that from a moral perspective...

I think you understand it better than you realize.

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: Re: Conflict

Well done!! I love it when people take my words out of their original context and twist them to mean something else.

*yawn*

The first sentance you quote is general, the second sentance you quote is specific, the poll question is general.

Another nice tap dance.

Actually I was partly messing w/you, but your wording in the orig. response was also a tap dance IMO; was just pointing that out, ie:

First you say "generally" and then add an absolute to it - ("nothing is worth fighting for"). To say "generally I'd never do this" makes no sense. If there are some cases where that isn't true, then clearly you don't really believe that, ie you think there are some things worth fighting for.

 

[Generalist]

bigred: Yeah, I was fairly well aware that you were tugging on my leg.

I think I get where you're not getting me though, and I will try to explain.

What I'm outlining is that nothing is ever worth starting the violence. I'm never the instigator. (this isn't a view I've always held, it is one I have learned and developed over time) Nor do I believe that anyone should ever 'throw the first punch', if nobody ever started violence, then we would not be forced to add a qualifying statement, we would be able to say "Nothing is worth fighting over" and leave it at that.

The situation is different when violence is already happening, as in reality. Then action to bring the violence to an end may be a good idea, particularly if the conflict is not resolving itself, may cause death, and/or is occuring on an unacceptably large scale.

Note that the action taken to bring violence to an end, need not always be violent of itself.

I suppose that you pointing out the double think evident in this is a good thing. I guess the reason for the double think is that while I personally do not believe that there is ever any reason to 'throw the first punch', I am also aware that not everyone else sees things this way, which is the reason that a qualification for a specific type of situation is necessary, giving the impression of double think.

I'd guess I'm being a bit idealistic with my views of the situation, do you think there is anything wrong with idealism?