What is worth fighting for

[Zep]

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...

You jumped to a conclusion from an assumption there. And a big jump too. It does not hold that I accept that WW2 was "worth fighting" if I said I would be prepared to be involved in it. It's the same as concluding I would support Dr Mengele's little experiments if I learned medicine.

And who is more moral: Someone trying to patch up hurt people, or someone trying to inflict that hurt.

 

[Zep]

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?

Well said - much as how I feel about things of this nature.

 

[Zep]

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.

Perhaps I am influenced too much by Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H.

 

[Giz]

It does not hold that I accept that WW2 was "worth fighting" if I said I would be prepared to be involved in it. It's the same as concluding I would support Dr Mengele's little experiments if I learned medicine.

Still not really getting you... if you are prepared to be involved (i.e. not being compelled) then surely you feel it's "worth it"? Why else would you put yourself in harms way?

I think you've mangled your Mengele'd metephor. My point was that feeling that something is worthwhile is a prerequisite for being willing to be involved in it (i.e. the SAME "it"!). Learning medicene and Mengele's "little experiments" cannot be considered the same...

And who is more moral: Someone trying to patch up hurt people, or someone trying to inflict that hurt.

The concentration camps were liberated by people with guns, not bandages. You think that committed pacifists who sat back while others fought and died so that their societies - that respected pacifism as a moral choice - survived, are somehow more moral than those that fought (and died) for them?

Sorry, but I think they relied on their being enough good men that they could indulge their simplistic moral qualms and still have the good side win. To argue from authority "all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", "to abstain from the conflict between democracy and fascism is to be objectively pro-fascist". Don't you agree?

 

[kimiko]

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...

Medics were just as necessary in the war as foot soldiers. They also got their hands plenty dirty with blood and guts instead of taking lives. Having a preference for the blood rather than the death is a moral choice.

 

[Zep]

Still not really getting you... if you are prepared to be involved (i.e. not being compelled) then surely you feel it's "worth it"? Why else would you put yourself in harm's way?

I would "go in harm's way" to help those hurt by war, but not to further the prosecution of the conflict - think Médecins Sans Frontières. I also give blood regularly, and volunteer to be a guinea-pig for medical research. But that's at the more personal commitment level, as I do not like to see people hurt (I'm a softie, really!).

On a higher level, politically I have learned that wars are almost always caused by people not being aware of obvious factors predisposing to conflict, or if aware, by failure or deliberate neglect to take them into account. These are remediable situations, don't you agree?

I think you've mangled your Mengele'd metephor. My point was that feeling that something is worthwhile is a prerequisite for being willing to be involved in it (i.e. the SAME "it"!). Learning medicine and Mengele's "little experiments" cannot be considered the same...

But they ARE the same. Mengele was a registered doctor and his experimental results (they were quite solid!) were actually used by the Allies after the war - everyone learned quiet a lot from them. Does that make his lack of morality and demonstrated cruelty valid?

You point about worthwhile being prerequisite to involvement in the SAME "it" is not valid. You are generalising too far. Case in point: I could not have possibly condoned or worked alongside Mengele, yet I could have had no qualms about being in field ambulance - same "it", same conflict...

The concentration camps were liberated by people with guns, not bandages. You think that committed pacifists who sat back while others fought and died so that their societies - that respected pacifism as a moral choice - survived, are somehow more moral than those that fought (and died) for them?

My aunt was a committed pacifist, and was a refugee resettlement expert with the Red Cross (UNRAA) who accompanied the GI's into a number of those camps. She helped the victims return to their homelands and families, to pick up their lives. She didn't "sit at the back" but was at "the front"...thanks all the same. Neither, I suspect, did a lot of other pacifists. Can I mention "stereotyping" now??

Sorry, but I think they relied on there being enough good men that they could indulge their simplistic moral qualms and still have the good side win. To argue from authority "all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", "to abstain from the conflict between democracy and fascism is to be objectively pro-fascist". Don't you agree?

Arguing from homily, actually - so it's even less persuasive.

But if you like them, how about one from me in reply: To allow a war to develop between [one viewpoint] and [opposing viewpoint] is to allow that neither side had the mental capacity or the intestinal fortitude to be discussing their viewpoints in the first place. War is simply an extension of their childish Neanderthal desire to hit something with a mastodon's leg-bone when frustrated.

 

[Giz]

But if you like them, how about one from me in reply: To allow a war to develop between [one viewpoint] and [opposing viewpoint] is to allow that neither side had the mental capacity or the intestinal fortitude to be discussing their viewpoints in the first place. War is simply an extension of their childish Neanderthal desire to hit something with a mastodon's leg-bone when frustrated.

To continue using our WW2 example... one of the sides did bend over backwards to satisfy the other. Chr*st, Chamberlain even "gave" Hitler Chzeckslovakia... how much more could he have done? Pretty much the only way to have avoided fighting Hitler would have been to surrender unconditionally and have our jews, commies etc rounded up and ready to be put on the trains.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you only need ONE side to be irrational and intent on war. Or are you saying that in a perfect world the Nazis would have listened to reason?

 

[Zep]

To continue using our WW2 example... one of the sides did bend over backwards to satisfy the other. Chr*st, Chamberlain even "gave" Hitler Chzeckslovakia... how much more could he have done? Pretty much the only way to have avoided fighting Hitler would have been to surrender unconditionally and have our jews, commies etc rounded up and ready to be put on the trains.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you only need ONE side to be irrational and intent on war. Or are you saying that in a perfect world the Nazis would have listened to reason?

If you were reading above, WW2 "started" almost from the end of WW1 and the Treaty of Versaille (the terms of which were set by the "victors"). That alone gave Hitler, a soapbox ranter if ever there was one, a national platform and a springboard to work with, which he did. The rot started with the ceding of the Saar by the French, not the Sudetenland later. By the time Chamberlain entered the picture, and especially by the time of the infamous Munich Pact in 1938, the conflict was already well under way, and all of Europe was re-arming. Do you recall learning about Ethiopia..?? Or Spain...??

Now. Imagine if the Treaty of Versaille had been as fair-minded and magnanimous in 1919 as the Marshall Plan was in 1947. So that Germany was able to rebuild itself with dignity in the 1920's and 30's as it did in the 1950's and 60's. No platform of dissent for the fascists to work from, Hitler remains a ranting nobody, no ultra-nationalism, no secret arms build-up, no WW2 to fight... Maybe.

 

[LW]

But if you like them, how about one from me in reply: To allow a war to develop between [one viewpoint] and [opposing viewpoint] is to allow that neither side had the mental capacity or the intestinal fortitude to be discussing their viewpoints in the first place. War is simply an extension of their childish Neanderthal desire to hit something with a mastodon's leg-bone when frustrated.

BTW, you haven't yet told what is the blindingly obvious observation that the Finnish government might have done in 1939 (or perhaps sometimes earlier) that would have prevented the war and/or the occupation by Soviet Union.

 

[Garrette]

Zep,

I agree that the seeds of WWII were sown at the end of WWI, but it seems you are applying a "Sins of the Father" argument.

As Chamberlain did not become an MP until 1918 and was not, as far as I can tell, involved in the armistice negotiations, he was left, at best, to deal with the mess others had made once he came to power.

He attempted to do so.

Hitler, too, could not by any stretch bear any fault for the mess after WWI. However, when he came to power, he intentionally exploited the mess.

Is there ever a point after the chain of regrettable events and damnable decisions that an individual, while recognizing the global unjustness of the situation, might be justified in resorting to violence?

 

[Zep]

Too long story to condense into one post (many, many long books have been written on this). The very short and highly abstracted reason is that Soviet leadership feared that some Western country (UK, France, or Germany) would attack Leningrad through Finnish territory so they decided to remove the danger by annexing Finland into Soviet Union.

So some sort of pact between the Soviet Union and the Allies that this would NOT happen wouldn't have been successful?

Kind of a draw. Finland had to cede 1/10th of her territory to Soviet Union but remained independent. Soviets lost ~135,000 KIA and ~220,000 WIA (Krivosheev's figures, exact casualties unknown). Finnish losses were ~23,000 KIA and ~43,000 WIA.

Kind of a draw? So, apart from some slight border shifting, all those people got killed for no real gain on either side? Or was the body-count how the war was "scored"?

After the war Soviet Union continued to threat Finland both politically and militarily, so Finnish leadership started to seek help outside. Finland tried to form a defensive alliance with Sweden but that one was torpedoed by Soviet opposition (Swedes didn't want to antagonize Soviets). Since fall of Norway had cut off the routes to Western Allies, this left Germany as the only possible supporter. So, one of the direct results of Soviet invasion was that Finland ended up in German side during Operation Barbarossa, just the eventuality that the Soviet leaders wanted to prevent.

So it didn't work out so well for the Soviets after all. They should have just left Finland well enough alone in the first place, do you think?

Peaceful.

So I gather!

 

[Tmy]

We are talking about war right? Call me crazy but I tend to think that war should be a last result. Im amazed how so many people were pro Iraq invaision just cause its the macho thing to do.

When did wanting peace become such a horrible position?

 

[Garrette]

Well, you've finally done it, Tmy.

You'ver perfectly and succinctly encapsulated my position and the position of all the other warmongers here in just a few words.

I supported the Iraq war because it's macho.

I think war should be the first resort.

And I think wanting peace is horrible.


I feel so ashamed.

 

[bigred]

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?

Ah thx for clarification.

Idealism is not only not "wrong" but absolutely necessary in life. The problem IMO comes when it is overdone, ie not bumped up against reality.......and the reality is that human nature dictates that sooner or later someone IS going to throw the first punch, so to speak, and that sooner or later there are going to be cases when it's worth it to fight - or perhaps to be more precise, given your reply, to fight BACK.

 

[Zep]

Zep,

I agree that the seeds of WWII were sown at the end of WWI, but it seems you are applying a "Sins of the Father" argument.

As Chamberlain did not become an MP until 1918 and was not, as far as I can tell, involved in the armistice negotiations, he was left, at best, to deal with the mess others had made once he came to power.

He attempted to do so.

Yes, Chamberlain was later on the scene, but he had no idea of whom he was dealing with in Hitler. He was a very trusting man, and was totally devastated later when Hitler invaded Poland and war ensued. In reality, I don't think even a beligerent like Churchill could have prevented those events - they were clearly building for a long time.

Hitler, too, could not by any stretch bear any fault for the mess after WWI. However, when he came to power, he intentionally exploited the mess.

No Hitler didn't CREATE the mess, but by 1923 he had used the popular disgust with the terms of the Versaille Treaty to generate enough popular backlash to attempt a putsch (which had him jailed, where he wrote Mein Kampf). That treaty was a big bug-bear for Hitler - he had the French surrender in 1940 signed in the same train carriage on the same spot in France.

Is there ever a point after the chain of regrettable events and damnable decisions that an individual, while recognizing the global unjustness of the situation, might be justified in resorting to violence?

That is not the same question as "What is worth fighting for?", and so it would get a different answer. Do you want my answer to your question, or to the thread question.

 

[Tmy]

Well, you've finally done it, Tmy.

You'ver perfectly and succinctly encapsulated my position and the position of all the other warmongers here in just a few words.

I supported the Iraq war because it's macho.

I think war should be the first resort.

And I think wanting peace is horrible.


I feel so ashamed.

Glad to be of help.

By the way. Ever notice that most of the people claiming that Iraq is worth fighting for are the ones who are not actually doing the fighting.

 

[Garrette]

Got stats?

I was there for a year.

It's specious, anyway. Most people who aren't supporting the fighting in Iraq haven't been there.

In fact, most people haven't been there.

 

[crimresearch]

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...

Possibly that is because it is someone else's moral perspective.

In spite of all the debate over 'just wars', war happens.. and it happens a lot.
And while war is happening, I can think of worse things to do than to help the wounded.

 

[bigred]

We are talking about war right? Call me crazy but I tend to think that war should be a last result.

Er you're not exactly going out on a limb there.

Im amazed how so many people were pro Iraq invaision just cause its the macho thing to do.

You must work in a prison or something, because I work for the military and even I haven't heard that (or gotten that impression) from one single person.

When did wanting peace become such a horrible position? [/B]

?? When did anyone ever say it was?

No offense meant, but could you pls visit one of the various threads around on the Iraq war to discuss further? I know it's related, but this could easily sidetrack the overall discussion here......thx

 

[bigred]

You jumped to a conclusion from an assumption there. And a big jump too. It does not hold that I accept that WW2 was "worth fighting" if I said I would be prepared to be involved in it. It's the same as concluding I would support Dr Mengele's little experiments if I learned medicine.

That's not the same thing at all.

In one case you said you were prepared to be involved and assisting in something very specific (ie WW II, not just war in general), although only in certain ways.

In the next, you say (imply) you would not support the specific thing at all (Megele's experiements) in any way shape or form. Learning medicine doesn't change that.

Apples n oranges.