6 ms·

>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fi

>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fight ineffectively. Starting a fight is not without a cost to a side that loses the fight, that cost may be in lives, money or emotional energy. To fight ineffectively for a noble cause is to fight unjustly since you hurt your chances of winning, to fight unjustly but effectively for a noble cause turns a noble cause into an unjust cause. >IT is a fight a fight is a war. Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights). >There are very few rules in war. The appeal to a war mentality you are making is an appeal to as you say "few rules". This is both untrue in that most wars are fought within a large number of rules and limited in scope, most wars are not absolute wars, and absolute wars tend to consume the original causes for the war. Absolute wars are wars for the sake of war rather than wars for the sake of principal. To advocate a war mentality for the purpose of arguing that few rules apply is completely self-defeating since such a war destroys the original purpose you are attempting to achieve. >make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner. This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not. Do not take this post as defense of the earlier poster.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
3327 14y ago
>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. Retracted that is not a good statement. >Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights). A majority of wars are fights, in the case of your example the war may be doctored up but there is a fight, not a fight of weapons, a fight to control the population and to bring them together for one reason or another. But every war has a fight in it which, may or may not be clear and only revealed with the passage of time. And a fight is a manifestation of war. Not always guns drawn, but of minds, and some higher interest. The fight is not always apparent as I said or vice versa. But highly likely that one contains the other. >There are very few rules in war. Yes you are correct and I am aware most wars are not absolute wars. But rules are on paper and historical evidence such as, bombing of Dresden, Osaka or Pforzheim in WW2 are small examples of how rules get thrown out the window when in desperation. Or how banned weapons come out when on dire straits. Wars will start with rules, and rules will only stay when they are of interest to both sides. Or rules of torture? How quickly lawyers and the law makers can overturn rules when they need to ? This statement is 100% true, do not fool yourself to believe otherwise. >make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner. >This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not. Evil wins.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

3327 14y ago

>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. Retracted that is not a good statement. >Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights). A majority of wars are fights, in the case of your example the war may be doctored up but there is a fight, not a fight of weapons, a fight to control the population and to bring them together for one reason or another. But every war has a fight in it which, may or may not be clear and only revealed with the passage of time. And a fight is a manifestation of war. Not always guns drawn, but of minds, and some higher interest. The fight is not always apparent as I said or vice versa. But highly likely that one contains the other. >There are very few rules in war. Yes you are correct and I am aware most wars are not absolute wars. But rules are on paper and historical evidence such as, bombing of Dresden, Osaka or Pforzheim in WW2 are small examples of how rules get thrown out the window when in desperation. Or how banned weapons come out when on dire straits. Wars will start with rules, and rules will only stay when they are of interest to both sides. Or rules of torture? How quickly lawyers and the law makers can overturn rules when they need to ? This statement is 100% true, do not fool yourself to believe otherwise. >make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner. >This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not. Evil wins.