Warrior blood

I recently saw a topic titled "People Killing Each Other" and it got me thinking. To a certian degree, I think that peace is an ideal goal. However I think that peace, like freedom, must be maintained and fought for. There will always be conflict, whether it is violent or nonviolent - the future will tell.

My beliefs revolve around the ancient beliefs of the vikings and pagans, as that is where my ancestry lies. I have certifiable proof that my family is descended from viking bloodlines, and my ancestors for the most part have been warriors of some sort or another.

I crave conflict, and I look forward to the day that the "R" takes place as it will be my chance to earn my way into the halls of Valhalla. That said, even after the fight is over and peace is won, both in this world and the next, the state of peace must be maintained and fought for, again whether in a violent or nonviolent sense is to be found out.

I think we too easily cast away our proud history as a warrior race. We have fought over the centuries for freedom, justice, equality, and faith. Blood has paved the way for reforms and improvements in technology which increase the quality of life for people around the world.

"For neither has man lived, nor died in vain"

To cast away our history as a warrior race and look at it with disdain, is to disregard everything beneficial that conflict has brought to us as a collective people.

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I am not so ready as others to let go of the inner warrior that lives within me, and it waits for the day it can make a difference in the lives of those who are too weak of either body or heart to fight for themselves.

Perhaps we are just refining the chain of command!?

Adder wrote: Perhaps we are just refining the chain of command!?

In what sense?

Kohadre wrote: To cast away our history as a warrior race and look at it with disdain, is to disregard everything beneficial that conflict has brought to us as a collective people.

Peace is a beautiful ideal to be lived by the kind and gentle, fought for and defended by those of us that can willingly accept the responsibility and the consequences...there will always be a need for warriors and scholars...

Say one day we achieve global peace and there is no place for warrior types in society....there will still be a need...I doubt we are the only sentient beings in existence...and it is widely believed that if earth is visited it would be by conquerors seeking our resources...how would we defend the people or resources without the warrior types....

I don't know, maybe this is just my perspective and all we'll come to is the need to agree to disagree, but it seems to me that "fighting for peace" is a contradiction of terms.

The way I see it is that you can't "fight" for peace because that ensures there will always be fighting. Who decides what peace is? Isn't peace the absence of fighting? If that were the case, then fighting for peace is undoing the very thing you're fighting for. Furthermore the fighting may never end until all but the smallest group of those in complete agreement are left alive. Even then there is an inevitable changing of opinions and ideas which would lead to more fighting and destruction which heralds the end of your short-lived peace.

Jamie Stick wrote: I don't know, maybe this is just my perspective and all we'll come to is the need to agree to disagree, but it seems to me that "fighting for peace" is a contradiction of terms.

The way I see it is that you can't "fight" for peace because that ensures there will always be fighting. Who decides what peace is? Isn't peace the absence of fighting? If that were the case, then fighting for peace is undoing the very thing you're fighting for. Furthermore the fighting may never end until all but the smallest group of those in complete agreement are left alive. Even then there is an inevitable changing of opinions and ideas which would lead to more fighting and destruction which heralds the end of your short-lived peace.

Did you read all of my post or just cherry pick the parts that appealed to you?

I said peace has to be maintained and fought for, but the future will tell if that is in a violent or NONVIOLENT manner

Perhaps the letting go of a long gone history is the benefit that came out of the conflict. Society lives and learns and evolves, and eventually no longer needs what it once used. A society becomes free from its dependence upon realizing what is more important in the end. Should this movement involve disdain? I don't think so. Letting go of the past only happens when the past has been properly considered and respected, and then given a proper farewell. However, to praise it and worship it is only trying to resurrect the dead. If it were not in the past, it would not be dead. Doesn't the dead only wish to rest in peace?

I'm curious too, what kind of "peace" are we talking about here? Political?

If I fight my brother in an attempt to convince him to be "peaceful" toward me, will this work? I am after all "fighting for peace"... but will he feel peace toward me even if I win? Will he intend peace toward me after I've wrestled him to the ground with violence? If I'm defending myself as he attacks me, will this change his mind to be peaceful toward me?

Has "fighting for peace" ever truly worked? Is the world more at peace due to all the wars we've had? If "fighting for peace" was a real thing, how peaceful do you think the world should be today after the wars we've already had?

It's an ageless paradox...to have peace be prepared for war....

I recently read an article discussing how china isn't ready or willing to go to war against the u.s. or its allies yet because we still hold the upper hand militarily...but in another 15years approximately they will be able to match us...for now though we have peace with them because we ARE prepared for war...

I really wish I could find that article again...I thought of linking it after I read it too....

For the foreseeable future there will always be the need for someone to fight to defend those who can't defend themselves. Conflict is a natural part of life but it is how we approach it that is most important. I certainly don't think it should be sort for. I believe peace should always be our aim and that is why if I ever train in a martial art I will choose Aikido as it's philosophy most resonates with me. If anything can be considered fighting for peace it's that. "Your spirit is the true shield" - Morihei Ueshiba