On the field of battle there is no honour to be gained  – only honour to be lost.

Hahmokuva Kyy muokattu

If a person has honour, if one is honourable, one does not need to venture into war to gain it. Does one? But anyone may lose their honour when facing overwhelming odds, or simply the terror of slaughter. Anyone who is not totally devoid of emotions.

If a person has no honour, what honour does war provide them with? If a person wishes to hold one’s honour intact, does that person need to engage in a war? Perhaps. What are the circumstances for that to be so? In defence of their country on the “sacred ground” of their own country? In defence of the “interrests” of their country abroad, on someone else’s “sacred ground”? In defence of the interrest of corporations mainly owned by shareholders from one’s own country? In defence of innocent civillians of a nother country, even if those civillians would not want this protection from the outside invader?

It is honourable to defend the weak and the helpless, but how far do you have to go and what principles are you ready to abandon, just to achieve a goal?

What is glory? Who deserves glory? An artist creating a magnificent piece of art, or composing an emotionally moving song, or even a symphony. Certainly such an artist is worth a praise and deserving of glory. An engineer, or chemist developing a new aid to human wellbeing. They deserve glory, yes? What about a conqueror? What justifies an attack on a nother sovereign nation? What amount of misery, powerty, and dead civillians is acceptable, for the conquering general to gain honour and glory for his leadership? What kind of threat is enough to justify a pre-emptive strike? What amount of collateral damage is acceptable? What sort of reign of terror in a nother country warrants a military action against a dictator? How much oppression may one suffer from a nother nation living in the same country, before any outsiders come to their help? And what if the suffering nation has no raw materials to trade for their freedom? What if the oppressors are the allies of the strong and the mighty nations?

If the cost of the invasion in human lives and misery grows greater than the cost caused by the terror of the deposed dictator, was the intervention justified? Is the life of a citizen of a certain country more valuable and precious to us as a humanity, than the life of a nother person and a citizen of a nother country? Or is it just about how might makes right?

Is the agressor, or the invader not allways wrong? If not, who is to determine who has the right to attack a nother? Whose sense of morals is it, that defines what constitutes as reason enough to justify agression? Perhaps some consensus of nations. But what if one nation is militarily and economically strong enough not to care about the consensus of nations? Or politically powerfull enough to draw many other nations with similar interrests with it, to accept attacks on other nations? To force other sovereign nations to buy crappy weapons and give military access and free airspace to conduct raids and bombing runs of the citizens of that other nation…

Do we citizens of many nations, simply sit ildly by then? Should we simply hope for the best? That the deadly interrest of any bigger and stronger nation will not turn on our natural resources? If we are the citizens of such a bigger and stronger nation, should we be pleased that we are in the recieving end of the food chain?

Are honour and glory to be gained by setting one’s own life on the line for others? How exactly is that done? A man throwing himself on a grenade sacrifices himself for the people who might have been killed by the grenade and he surely gains honour & glory as surely as he dies. But did some soldier of an invation force on the other side of the globe actually defend people back home by pointing his machine gun at some family in a conquered country? Or did he simply create new enemies for his belowed at home?