“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
“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.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I thought that was what the writer was attempting to say but the sentence is a classic example of someone having failed to read what he has just written and ask himself if he has actually said what he meant. The whole problem could have been avoided by adding two words, need for.
What kind of government we actually have is debatable. It is certainly moving toward an oligarchical dictatorship if not there already, we will know by the end of 2010 whether we are past the point of no return, I suspect that we are. It is certainly NOT the constitutional republic we are promised in the now forgotten constitution, everything the congress is trying so hard to pass is in violation of the constitution and should never have even come up for discussion. It is NOT a democracy because that implies majority rule and the current power grabbers care not at all what the majority wants, they only want what suits their power grabbing purpose.
Is it wrong to refuse to fight for your country’s government? Not necessarily morally wrong certainly but it may involve criminal penalties depending on what country and what time period. Of course we all know that what is wrong and what is criminal are two different subjects.
Does it matter what kind of government it is? I would say yes, a just government would only go to war to defend liberty, it may be morally wrong to enjoy the fruits of liberty while expecting others to take all the risks of defending it for you. Of course there probably has never been a case of a nation going to war with unanimous approval of the citizens. Some will always say it is unjustified.