What is worth fighting for

[Drooper]

I read on the Vietnam thread the following comment.

no war is really "worth it"

There does seem to be a wider group of individuals who seem to ascribe to this view. I was interested in probing this more explicitly.

Do people here believe there is anything worth fighting for?

 

[Mycroft]

A better life for my children.

 

[Zep]

OK, let's get the whole quote (it was mine anyway). It always helps to put it in correct context.

No war is really "worth it". People can always look back after it is over and say, "You know, we could have got the same result without having to kill each other by the millions if only we realised that...[insert blindingly obvious observation here]".

OK, carry on!

 

[Zep]

A better life for my children.

And after your enemy has shot you dead, what then for your children's "better life"?

 

[LW]

And after your enemy has shot you dead, what then for your children's "better life"?

I've started and erased my reply to this two times before since I don't really know what to say.

So, I'll just suggest you to compare the standards of living in Finland and Estonia if you wonder whether a war can bring better life to the descendants of the soldiers.

 

[BPSCG]

And after your enemy has shot you dead, what then for your children's "better life"?

No, the idea is to shoot your enemy ddead before he shoots you dead, and then your wife, and then your children, and then your siblings, and then your family, and then your neigbors and then your ethnic group, and then...

Let me ask you, regarding your original claim, that

"You know, we could have got the same result without having to kill each other by the millions if only we realised that...[insert blindingly obvious observation here]".

Regarding Naziism, how would we have got the same result without warring against Hitler?

ETA: I believe I am morally justified in fighting to save my own life, and the lives of my loved ones. I believe in using violence, if need be, to save my life and the lives of my loved ones. If using violence to save my own life is justifiable, why is it not justifiable for a hundred million people collectively to use violence to save their lives?

 

[Hutch]

Regarding Naziism, how would we have got the same result without warring against Hitler?

Well, there was the Sudentenland, when a move by the French/english of even s single Division would have brough a precipitate retreat by the poorly-equipped and prepared (at that time) Germans, perhaps with an occupation of the area. It is likely the Hitler Government would have collapsed under the humilitation and the war might not have come--or at least, would have been postponed.

As for the OP, yes, there are some things worth fighting for. the problem is that unless they confront you directly (i.e, a better life for my children) it can be a harder sell. Remember, the isolationists were a major force in American politics in the time before pearl Harbor, and the German-American Bund had tens of thousands of members in the 1930's (prominent among them was Charles Lindbergh).

So deciding personally to fight to protect you and yours is easy; making the jump that fighting for all folks protection-even those from a different country is often a harder sell.

 

[gnome]

1. Defending your life if you are under attack
2. Defending the lives of allies or countrymen under attack

 

[gnome]

Regarding Naziism, how would we have got the same result without warring against Hitler?

I have heard a saying that a war is not over unless you have a fair plan for how your former enemies will live.

Not leaving Germany to rot after WWI might have gone along way.

 

[Mycroft]

I have heard a saying that a war is not over unless you have a fair plan for how your former enemies will live.

Not leaving Germany to rot after WWI might have gone along way.

So was Germany justified in going to war in WWII?

 

[Kerberos]

I have heard a saying that a war is not over unless you have a fair plan for how your former enemies will live.

Or for how they won't

 

[kalen]

Peace.

Though some may differ, I am only double-speaking for myself.

 

[gnome]

So was Germany justified in going to war in WWII?

Certainly not.

Poverty doesn't justify crime, but you can reduce crime by reducing poverty. Even if you have no moral urge to do so, it is effective in the practical sense.

 

[Grammatron]

And after your enemy has shot you dead, what then for your children's "better life"?

Depends on the objective of the war and if, even though you died, the war was wone it could certain mean better life for your children. Certainly one should hope the war would be the last resort, but it should be an option.

 

[a_unique_person]

OK, let's get the whole quote (it was mine anyway). It always helps to put it in correct context.OK, carry on!

Unfortunately, it appears to be SOP here.

 

[Dancing David]

This is a truely profound question, for years I studied WWII on an informal basis. I came to the conclusion that there are times that it is appropriate to fight evil and to defend life.

But then I met a devout christian who never prosletised and she challenged me on the nessecity of war. She said that the commission of evil in the defense of good is still evil.

So I believe that it is justifiable to fight to defend life, but one should be careful in the execution of the effort.

 

[Zep]

No, the idea is to shoot your enemy dead before he shoots you dead, and then your wife, and then your children, and then your siblings, and then your family, and then your neigbors and then your ethnic group, and then...

And what if YOU are the enemy? Is he then justified in shooting YOU dead to save HIS wife, children, etc, etc?

 

[Zep]

Unfortunately, it appears to be SOP here ("unfortunate" quoting).

I had noticed that, which is why I was trying to be quick to make sure I was not a victim of same.

 

[BPSCG]

And what if YOU are the enemy? Is he then justified in shooting YOU dead to save HIS wife, children, etc, etc?

If I attack him without provocation? Absolutely.

If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and someone attacks me or my loved ones with a knife, I am justified in using violence, even deadly force, in stopping him.

If that's true for an individual, it is no less true for a nation.

 

[RandFan]

Regarding Naziism, how would we have got the same result without warring against Hitler?

This was something that Gandhi, a personal hero of mine, considered. He thought that it was possible to achieve victory over Germany through non-violence. The problem is that the Nazis had become a very lethal and efficient killing machine slaughtering millions in the gas chamber. Non violence would have likely resulted in the death of millions more and how do you non-violently resist a tiger tank? Mortars, cannon, rifles? If an enemy is bent on your destruction non-violence is unlikely to work. Hitler acted because he believed that he could prevail. He didn't care about diplomacy and he had no conscience. Such tactics are of no effect when they are used on a socio-path.