The mentality of "fighting" for peace

I was just curious what people thought of the mentality of "fighting" for peace. By this I mean singling out the action of engaging in violent activities in order to maintain, or even obtain a state of peace within a community or within the world.

While I do not believe that wars are beneficial in any shape in leading to the outcome of peace, I feel that conflicts on an individual scale can at times, and in special circumstances, lead to unique applications of peace. By example, if the assassination of one individual will lead to the prevention of both war and loss of life, is it not a just action to end that person's life assuming all other avenues of diplomacy and negotiation have been exhausted?

What would any of you do for peace? Would you fight if it was absolutely necessary, and you had exhausted all other diplomatic options. Would you take one individuals life if it meant saving the lives of countless others?

When is violence necessary for peace to be maintained/obtained, or is it ever necessary/justified to begin with? Is a Jedi permitted, or even obligated by oath in certain circumstances to fight for the attainment or maintenance of the state of peace?

Fighting for peace. This is something I would most definitely do, though taking a life wouldn't be included. Call me naive but there is no point in ending a life, there is always another option. Always. I would, however, fight tooth and nail. Consider two men, sometimes the only way to solve a conflict between two men is to fight physically. But after said fight there is a peace between them. It happens between animals all the time, sometimes it can be a good thing to use your animal instincts instead of completely shunning them. I feel that death does not have to be a byproduct of this however.

Raikoutenshi wrote: Fighting for peace. This is something I would most definitely do, though taking a life wouldn't be included. Call me naive but there is no point in ending a life, there is always another option. Always. I would, however, fight tooth and nail. Consider two men, sometimes the only way to solve a conflict between two men is to fight physically. But after said fight there is a peace between them. It happens between animals all the time, sometimes it can be a good thing to use your animal instincts instead of completely shunning them. I feel that death does not have to be a byproduct of this however.

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Having said that, in light of the original post, death has always been a natural byproduct of war. I don't think you can have a bloodless war, by definition. Even the fake 'wars' we have here in the states, on drugs, on terror and so forth, have very real consequenceds and victimes, as we are seeing more and more these days.

This all leads to the question: If actions speak louder than words, but the pen is mightier than the sword, what do I do?

And on the topic of death as a byproduct I ask the question, why is it necessary? Why are people so ok with death when it is "according to plan"? Why does the headline TWO HUNDRED SOLDIERS DEAD AFTER BOMBING IN AFGHANISTAN affect you differently than TWO HUNDRED DEAD AFTER BOMBING IN NEW YORK? Is it because those soldiers signed up to die? You think they deserve death? Of course not. Imagine a world where soldiers were trained to neutralize targets by shooting in non-lethal areas and where human life was respected no matter whose it is. There is no reason to throw life away as some sort of natural resource just waiting to be used up. There is more to me than that. Death is only okay when it is by natural means. I can't just drop my morals to accept this reality. Instead I fight for a new reality, one that begins with what we already have and moves forward. One where humans can realize the truth. That we don't have to kill each other to get what we want. We all share a common goal, whether we realize it or not.

The lessons of different sides are finding,
through listening. War is entertainment for
pride, pride is good or bad. We can either
understand a relative fighting a war, then
unfortunate circumstances. Choices are anyone's
to fight, but instead of why. Politically ask how.
Death teaches to prevent death. We learn and
the energies of the innocent.

Pursuing an ideal does not trump a reality. We live comfortable lives and for many that makes deciding violence is unnecessary. I think it is an essential part of life that we in our aquariums have forgotten.

From my point of view having been in a role as a peace keeper and inforcer, violence is always the last option and taking someone's life is the VERY last thing that I have been trained to do. It seems that people who start the fight don't want to be part of the war and send in others to do the dirty work. We also need to understand that when the war is done what happens to those involved. Some don't understand that there is scaring both physical and mental, some can be healed easier than others, and this can breed more hate in the world. Talking is the best thing. I would prefere to be in a job that I will never get to see the ugly head of war but ready to defend people if I have to.
In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace.

As the old paradox goes: to have peace, you MUST be prepared for war.

As to assassination...if killing one will save more lives than sparing that one....well someone has to do it...

No morally/ethically good person deserves to die...the problem lies in ones definition of what is moral/ethical...

Soldiers know that they may die in combat, they agree to take on that risk when they take their oath...anyone joining the military has to be prepared to accept that fact, otherwise they shouldn't join....they must also understand that they may have to take life...to lessen the burden of morality there are very strict rules of engagement that are supposed to be followed, sadly these rules frequently get bent/broken...some simply cannot handle the psychological ramifications of taking life and their sense of morality begins twisting down a dark path...

I'd like to think more of defending peace more than fighting for peace. Whatever, the reality is there are bad things and bad people in life that make defending necessary. Just don't get carried away with it or it no longer is defending.

RyuJin wrote: As the old paradox goes: to have peace, you MUST be prepared for war.

As to assassination...if killing one will save more lives than sparing that one....well someone has to do it...

No morally/ethically good person deserves to die...the problem lies in ones definition of what is moral/ethical...

Good point, as morality is subjective and not universal, who is to decide what is moral, and what by what right or privilege are they to do so.