“That does not mean that things might not have been worse if the war was not fought, only that things would definitely have been better if there had been no war.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I wonder what the above sentence was supposed to have meant. As written it appears totally contradictory.
“That does not mean that things might not have been worse if the war was not fought, only that things would definitely have been better if there had been no war.”
I wonder what the above sentence was supposed to have meant. As written it appears totally contradictory.
It means, simply, if a nation’s only means of defence against an invasion is to go to war, and the war successfully repulses the invasion, things would have been worse if the war had not been fought, probably. However it would have been better if there were no invasion, and therefore no necessity of war at all.
Now I have a question for you. Is it wrong to refuse to fight for your contry’s government. (Only governments wage wars, not individuals.) Does it matter what kind of government it is? What kind of government would you say this country has at the moment. (Not what it was meant to be, but what it actually is.)
Hank