Are there good sides in a war?

[PETER2680]

Impossible there are no goods sides in war, stop referencing to Japan or USA civil war in Nigeria in 19th"s, what is the benefits? who gained most? who were highly rewarded, all is just futile. War is not a case you used the word inevitable, if fight is avoidable then war is also avoidable. War always destroy and destroy. No any other name to describe war even if its has a good sides like fighting for independence, its always panic and frightening. i believe round table is the solution to man's kind problem without going to war.

[1714153370]

1714153370

[1714153370]

1714153370

[1714153370]

1714153370

[1714153370]

1714153370

[Funmmi2]

NONE. The lives lost will never come back and the pain that it caused to the war victims will never be erased. Regardless if its for the good or bad, nobody wins at war. Fear and anxiety will always be there for those who experienced it. We always look at the result of the war but we never think about the circumstances that happened. We are only making the arms dealer rich while other people lost their innocent lives.

I totally agree,no good sides in war,the hidden reality of war which people fail to see are, the beneficiaries of war.those whose interests are germane to the war,those whose wealth emanate from the war by sale of armo/weapons and those whose political power have expanded.the soilders the ordinary citizens suffer the most.theres a popular saying where I come from,they say when two elephants fight,the grass suffer the most.

[fernandoaleixo]

NONE. The lives lost will never come back and the pain that it caused to the war victims will never be erased. Regardless if its for the good or bad, nobody wins at war. Fear and anxiety will always be there for those who experienced it. We always look at the result of the war but we never think about the circumstances that happened. We are only making the arms dealer rich while other people lost their innocent lives.

I totally agree,no good sides in war,the hidden reality of war which people fail to see are, the beneficiaries of war.those whose interests are germane to the war,those whose wealth emanate from the war by sale of armo/weapons and those whose political power have expanded.the soilders the ordinary citizens suffer the most.theres a popular saying where I come from,they say when two elephants fight,the grass suffer the most.

Indeed the only winners of war are those who profit from it, the crumbles and suffering are left for the people, in the end behind all the glory and reasons this is what war are, nations must have a less agressive foreigner policy, the reasons why Hitler rose to power was the agressive French/English colonialism and the competitiveness amongst european nations.

[akishang]

World War II for me is just a battle for power. Its a WAR to show how powerful a country can be and what will it be in the future. If you notice, the major participants on the world war II are the countries who are at the top nowadays. While there are lost lives, we all learned from what happened in the past and almost every country is making sure that world war would never happen again. The only good side is we have peace now and everyone wants it.

[September11Myth]

Sometimes it is easy to understand which is the good side in a war and which is the bad side. The aggressor is usually the bad side. For this reason countries like the USA, but also Hitler's Germany,  have always organized false flag attack against themselves (like 9/11) so as to pretend to be on the good side when they "respond" (in reality aggress) another country.

[tegaisaffluent]

The good side in a war is at least the voice of the aggrieved is heard which basically is the real idea behind the war in the first place. However, the bad aspect overwhelmingly out weights the good which is why people and nations tend to avoid it by all means necessary.

[giancarlo01]

in every war There's a bad side and A Good side. but to understand this better let me explain WAR and its types.

War means a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
popular Types of war; includes the Nuclear War,Border war,War of independence,Civil war,Cold war,Colonial war,Insurgency and even Fratricide(the act of killing one another).... etc
Now knowing this guides about the types of war you  can decide what kind of one you want to focus your interests, take for instance War on independence;
is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence. in this war, one can be right well as say also to be a a good side in this kind of war.

in this case the bad side is the state the previously held this new territory that's sending in its military forces.
people should be free to make their decision and carry them out. this happened in the case of the Russia Ukraine war
 
to be honest we can't resist war today Because of the Greed of most Humans.

[coolcoinz]

Technically there are some good sides. War is the time of the fastest technological development and progress. Of course people have to endure the hardships and live in constant fear, but many inventions find their origin in war. Without the development of the atomic bomb we wouldn't be able to use nuclear reaction to generate power. This is just one example.

[ThatOddGuy]

Only good side is technological progress. Just for example, we had powerful push in various technologies during and after WW1, WW2, "Cold War".
At other hand we have a lot of human deaths. So basically it looks like sacrifice to god of technologies.

[mrcash02]

In some conflicts I believe there isn't a good and an evil side, but taking World War 2 as example it's very clear there is a good and an evil side. To see this you can't take all the previous historic of the nations involved. Take only their actions towards the currently conflict in consideration. Otherwise it will be like blaming a grandson for his grandfather mistakes...

*POSTING ONCE AGAIN AS THE LAST POST WAS CENSORED!

[MrMac1000]

It's like Jorah Mormont said in Game of Thrones: "There's good and bad on every side in every war ever fought."

Atrocities are committed by both sides in a war, no matter who the aggressor is. War brings out the worst in people, no matter what side you're on.
Then again, not all soldiers are mindless killing machines.

[tinent5]

The Nazis were belligerent s trying to bring about the racial purity of the world through genocide. Some Western Allied soldiers commited war crimes here and there but this was not condoned by their superiors. The Soviets made war crimes a policy but they didn't believe in genocide or destroying other people for the benefit of the Russians, despite the policy of Russification.

[uldahuldah]

Yup those china shops in Dresden were a key element in Hitler's masterplan. While many elements of the WAllied air campaigns were courageous and brilliant (such as CAP over the jet airfields and knocking out the bridges and railways) there were malicious and vengeful actions like killing civilians because "they killed some of ours".  I agree with the basic idea that all war is evil and to be entered into with reluctance. Once you're there you need to win so evil becomes mandatory. That said there has to be a point when the game isn't woirth the candle. The Germans reached it in 1918 when they caved, but in 1945 Hitler died before he'd surrender, and his final plan was to make Germany almost uninhabitable. SO there are levels of evil.

[Criptomen]

In any action, you can find both positive and negative sides. Wars are different. War for the sake of capture, enslavement, enrichment. There is a war as a struggle between Good and Evil, a war of liberation. War is good for those who supply war with weapons, and he himself does not participate in the war.

But I think that in general the war is a bad idea and leads people along the path of self-destruction

[wer.tdgh]

Also firebombing of civilians is a very controversial decision. I don't really think there is such thing as a good side in war, I certainly don't feel heroic when it comes to any of the World Wars. It just seemed like a bunch of propaganda ads flying around so that everyone would kill each other.

[Adetayo Smith]

Well, if we first hear or take a look at the word "war", we might jump in to the conclusion that it is no good at all. That war doesn't have any good sides at all. But I personally think that it isn't true. I do believe that war has always a reason, it may be bad reason but for sure, it has always a good reason. One good reason is sovereignity and freedom. Historically speaking, our country, the Philippines fought for our country and enter into the war for these good and essential reasons. Yes, it is true that many people sacrifice and died, but at the end of the day, our nation achieved its goal not only for few but for the whole country. Another good side of a war is nationalism and patriotism. People at war realize to whom and where and why they are fighting.

well I must commend the insights of this speech bearer, he's made some very great ideologies and dialogues about the goods associated with war which I believe are inevitable for every purposeful and great nations, economy or a race of people which is freedom, liberty and independent from tribalism, colonialism, slavery and other sorts of mal treatment you know.
no great nations of the world abated from war and ended up being great I believe.
so coupled with self beliefs in what individuals, collective people who have liberty can do and achieve, there's more good to war.

[merchantofzeny]

Nothing good for civilians but for countries, it does represent opportunities. America's rise is attributed to it being mostly spared the damage of WW2 while Europe got wrecked (which allowed Americans influence later when they paid for its reconstruction). Another would be Southeast Asia where even after the Japanese left, the devastation convinced the colonialists to get the hell out.

[_navoj]

None, because everyone who is involve in a war can have more than one motive. One side may say that they are just fighting for what's right for their people but there is always a hidden agenda amongst the leaders who started it or retaliated in the first phase of war. The oppressors might be looking for resources like living space just like the Nazis did in the second world war so their people can occupy it. On the other hand, the defenders be like, are likely first to force the oppressors to stop the chaos, but after they win the war they will likely act as the oppressors who will also gain power on a country and might somehow control it for resources. The aftermath of the first world war proves it where the allies, who were the victors, controlled some of the parts of the former Ottoman Empire to gain access for oil. People always say that they are just doing what is right for other people, but there is always a hidden agenda on their sleeves. In addition,there is no really winner in war for there is always heavy casualties; civilian or military on both sides that overshadow the word victory.

[ani4]

People often talking about how USA was the good and Japan was the evil in World War 2, but when you see the history of every country involved, you start to find hard to take sides in any conflict, even though I hate nazis I can't see the Russians or Brittish or French as the good side, those were all imperialistic countries that killed and enslaved millions of people before Hitler, and kept doing so after he was gone. I believe one the biggest reasons for Hitler's rise into power was exactly Great Britain and France foreigner politics.

With regards to the Second World War and almost every other war, the aggressor is the one who brought the war and therefore the bad side, the Japanese did a preemptive strike on the USA though they were not officially in the war.

That does not make sense at all, so every independent country in the new world and africa were the bad guys declaring war in their colonizers? Also, in the Second World War the United States was more than involved with trade routes and aiding England in the war effort. The Japanese saw no other way to win the conflict but to attack first, by the way things were playing out, they had no other choice. It was attacking or being suffocated by the Allies policy.

there is no good or bad side in any of the wars... they are just brainwashed, enslaved poor people suffering (those fighting or not) and killing each other. Meanwhile, the elite play their geopoliticial/banking games.

Countries do not exist, they are banking/Legalese entities in your minds. Legality is not reality.

And whilst I agree with your points on the history regarding imperialistic/Crown Empire forces... another aspect that is often lost is that the victors alter and write the history books. We can only know a slither of the truth of what happened in any of these historical situations.

Exit fiat <3 x

[Starfranko]

The unfortunate thing about most warfare's that at the end of the aggression the warring parties usually come to a round table to negotiate out of the crisis. The question becomes why the option of peaceful negotiation was not considered prior to going to battle. I believe there are no good sides because of the lives that would have been lost before even negotiating is considered.