[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

A grand total of 19? Here is a little question for you, Morthoron and all others supporting this view - would you, if needed, sacrifice 19 of the people you know, cherish and respect for the sake of common good?
If the answer is yes, than we seem to have very different views on this. If it is no, than it would mean to me at least that you should condemn Gandalf to a certain degree for not coming along to the Shire, but sitting down and enjoying a talk with Tom Bombadil.

So, you're saying you would not fight and die to protect your homeland, wherever it is? You know, the one you so prominently denote in your signature line:

~Honour - Freedom - Fatherland ~
< 1815 >

Not knowing your specific homeland, I will assume that your sig line denotes the German Confederation that fought against Napoleon. Were those thousands upon thousands that fought and died for freedom in the Napoleonic Wars merely wasted lives? Shouldn't they have just settled for the yoke of Napoleon's empire?

You are saying one thing, but proudly display a symbol of freedom fighters. Do you not see a contradiction?

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, you say that this was no longer Gandalf's business, not his errand. But firstly, should we believe that all the goods that he had done previously were only done intentionatly in order to just stop Sauron? Would he not have acted in that way had it not served his purpose? I believe that as an innate good being Gandalf would have and should have helped others, no matter what his errand was. It's not like after the Ring was destroyed he should say, "I'm done here, bye!". Not very much his character.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that Gandalf knew the extent of the troubles in the Shire.

2. There is no evidence that Gandalf was aware that Saruman was in the Shire.

3. There is a great bit of supporting detail indicating Gandalf found the Hobbits extraordinary, and more than capable of handling their own problems.

4. Gandalf's mission was to bring the Free Peoples together to destroy Sauron. This was why he was sent by the Valar (and he was ordered by the Valar, going only very reluctantly). Once his mission was completed and the King was crowned in Gondor, he inferred he was going on a vacation to speak at length with Bombadil. His job was indeed done, and he felt that the comrades he left behind (Aragorn and the Hobbits), great heroes and wise folk, did not need him any longer. Again, he was no longer necessary in the 4th Age - the Age of Man. This is why he left with Galadriel and Elrond. There time was finished as well.

Originally Posted by The Might

Furthermore, I agree that the Hobbits had to grow to a new level, to be able to stand alone for themselves, if you read the post I made previously I do not believe I question that anywhere. The thing is, do you always need blood to flow in order to learn your lesson or to change something for the better?

Is there no other path that Gandalf could have lead the Hobbits on? I would like to believe there was a more peaceful way to solve the situation with the ruffians, some kind of passive resistance or maybe simply Gandalf as a charismatic leader showing the ruffians there was more to life than just ruling over others.

Gandalf had nothing further to do with the Shire, or Gondor, or Rohan. He retired. People are allowed to retire (and I would suggest that dying while fighting a Balrog would be reason enough to retire). But his unshakeable faith in the Hobbits, which he had held steadfastly throughout the Trilogy, was proved correct as usual. Passive resistance? That is a 20th century movement that has nothing to do with medieval or dark age belief systems. The idea is so anachronistic as to be ludicrous. Gandalf did not ever preach passive resistance. It was not in his nature, and that would not be the message he imparted to the Hobbits, who took an active approach to defeat evil.

Originally Posted by The Might

Accuse me of idealism if you wish to, but in a world plagued by wars with children, not men, children enrolled by both factions dying for "great ideals", no matter what these ideals are depending on the faction, I'd rather sit down and consider some alternatives, lest we destroy ourselves as a result of the pursuit of such ideals.

Passive resistance only works in places where those in control have a conscience, and where there is a free press. Gandhi and Martin Luther King worked through the media on the collective consciences of their countries to foment change. This type of protest would not and did not work in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia because the media was completely controlled by the party in control and dissent meant death (and millions upon millions died without report from the press). Saruman had no conscience. The ruffians were sadistic and avaricious. Your idealism would have no precedent, and would result in the deaths of Hobbits in any case. So you certainly have more dead hobbits than 19 playing it your way.

And your rather skewed view that the War of the Ring could have been settled peacefully is unworkable. Sauron was an immortal evil, not someone to be reasoned with. We all saw what happened when Neville Chamberlain gave us 'Peace in our time' by treating with Hitler. It merely allowed Hitler the ability to conquer countries without the need for troops to fight patriots. So it would be with Sauron.