Ethics and War (1 Viewer)

[Gandhi>Bush]

Our soldiers are representatives of all Americans when they go abroad. In your personal opinion, are you more concerned with a soldier's safety or the ethics placed in war that may and normally do result in a sacrifice of their safety?

Is it okay to fight dirty? To do things that may be called an "atrocity" by the liberal members of the world? Or should soldiers be chained to ethics that may result in the loss of their safety or even their lives for the sake of America's image abroad?

 

[tecoyah]

Its War.....you do not play nice in War. People will Die, and the object is to destroy an enemy. That said....I went with the third option, as it IS far more cpmplex than a simple yes or no. I personally cannot draw the Line, as I am not there...and do not have the experience in warfare to decide for those who are. I will say this though....if I knew I was required to treat people to torture, I would not go....period.Call me a coward if you wish but I cannot do it.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

Ethics and War

Thats a oxymoron buddy. War has no affiliation to the word ethics and there is no such thing as being ethical in a war. War is war. It is barbaric and hideous.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

Thats a oxymoron buddy. War has no affiliation to the word ethics and there is no such thing as being ethical in a war. War is war. It is barbaric and hideous.

I agree. That's why I do not recommend we engage in it.

I'm talking about where the line is, where you think it should be, whethere or not you think it exists.

I'm talking about Dresden, I'm talking about protocol on a battlefield. What to do in situations where civilians and soldiers are dressed alike. Do you shoot first or are some set of protocol or ethics in place?

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

I agree. That's why I do not recommend we engage in it.

if one does not engage in war, one will certainly be overrun by an aggressor. Way of the world

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

if one does not engage in war, one will certainly be overrun by an aggressor. Way of the world

Way of your world. If that is how you choose to think, that is how you choose to think. I find it to be self-defeating and self-fulfilling.

 

[Binary_Digit]

War is fought with ethics called Utilitarianism. Minimize the bad and maximize the good. If a soldier fights "dirty" and stays alive, it's good that he's still alive, but it's bad on a greater scale if his actions create a new enemy. Because in the end, his actions indirectly caused more death than they saved.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

I agree. That's why I do not recommend we engage in it.

I'm talking about where the line is, where you think it should be, whethere or not you think it exists.

I'm talking about Dresden, I'm talking about protocol on a battlefield. What to do in situations where civilians and soldiers are dressed alike. Do you shoot first or are some set of protocol or ethics in place?

As much as I am a supporter of prolife; I also dont recommend war. But lets face it, the world is a ugly and barbaric place. The only way to secure yourself is to protect yourself against indellable threats. It is because of my value of life that I see it necassary to protect our lives and mine. Yes others may die but its becasue that way many others will live. If you do not condone killing a few to save thousands of millions then you better reevaluate your ideals. This is what this world is about. Its a give and take world. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions and its always the lessor of 2 evils. Thats a reality you have to acclamate yourself to. IMO if I had to die to save a whole city of people then I would see it moral to myself and the upstanding thing to sacrifice myself to save those people.

Now to the Dresden subject, Like I said before ethics on a battlefield do not exist. The most cruel and barbaric will win. When you are in the middle of a fire fight the only thing you are thinking of is doing what is necassary to stay alive and to keep your brothers safe and alive. With that said civilians may get killed but its just war. You ever watch Black Hawk Down? Well in that movie when one of the soldiers was talking to Josh Hartnett(who was an idealist in the film) who was also the CO there the soldier told him to not worry about whats happening or whats going to happen or what he couldve done to change it "its just war." Theres no morality on a battlefield neither should anyone compare a soldier to those standards. I mean you are talking about analyzing a person in regards to ethics and morality whose job is killing people. This like I said is a oxymoron. It cant be done nor it shouldnt. Becasue their job in its krux is killing. Is this making any sense?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

Way of your world. If that is how you choose to think, that is how you choose to think. I find it to be self-defeating and self-fulfilling.

Find it how you want, but this is a reality that you need to realize someday. When you realize this everything else will become apparent to you. You are living in a utopianistic world that will never exist. Human nature will always prevail over ideals.

 

[SKILMATIC]

War is fought with ethics called Utilitarianism. Minimize the bad and maximize the good. If a soldier fights "dirty" and stays alive, it's good that he's still alive, but it's bad on a greater scale if his actions create a new enemy. Because in the end, his actions indirectly caused more death than they saved.

Please give examples of this.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

As much as I am a supporter of prolife; I also dont recommend war. But lets face it, the world is a ugly and barbaric place. The only way to secure yourself is to protect yourself against indellable threats. It is because of my value of life that I see it necassary to protect our lives and mine. Yes others may die but its becasue that way many others will live. If you do not condone killing a few to save thousands of millions then you better reevaluate your ideals. This is what this world is about. Its a give and take world. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions and its always the lessor of 2 evils. Thats a reality you have to acclamate yourself to. IMO if I had to die to save a whole city of people then I would see it moral to myself and the upstanding thing to sacrifice myself to save those people.

I too would sacrifice my own life to save lives, but when it comes to killing, killing is wrong. I would do everything in my power to save those people's lives and I would do everything in my power to save my own life, but not kill.

Now to the Dresden subject, Like I said before ethics on a battlefield do not exist. The most cruel and barbaric will win. When you are in the middle of a fire fight the only thing you are thinking of is doing what is necassary to stay alive and to keep your brothers safe and alive. With that said civilians may get killed but its just war. You ever watch Black Hawk Down? Well in that movie when one of the soldiers was talking to Josh Hartnett(who was an idealist in the film) who was also the CO there the soldier told him to not worry about whats happening or whats going to happen or what he couldve done to change it "its just war." Theres no morality on a battlefield neither should anyone compare a soldier to those standards. I mean you are talking about analyzing a person in regards to ethics and morality whose job is killing people. This like I said is a oxymoron. It cant be done nor it shouldnt. Becasue their job in its krux is killing. Is this making any sense?

Whatever happened to the "lesser evil"?

Find it how you want, but this is a reality that you need to realize someday. When you realize this everything else will become apparent to you. You are living in a utopianistic world that will never exist. Human nature will always prevail over ideals.

The world is whatever it's habitant make it to be. End of story.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

The world is whatever it's habitant make it to be. End of story.

exactly, while you may hold yourself up as some highly enlightened individual
you are surrounded by animals who will kill you and conquer your country without a second thought
that is the real world
your idealism, while admirable, is naive and illequiped for survival in the world as it is

And that boys and girls, is the end of the story
goodnight

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

exactly, while you may hold yourself up as some highly enlightened individual
you are surrounded by animals who will kill you and conquer your country without a second thought
that is the real world
your idealism, while admirable, is naive and illequiped for survival in the world as it is

And that boys and girls, is the end of the story
goodnight

And you think that by being an animal we can make the world better?

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

And you think that by being an animal we can make the world better?

not at all
but by standing up and protecting, whether it is defensively or offensively, we make the world a better place

The only thing Evil needs to survive and grow, is for the Righteous to do nothing
it appears you prefer to do nothing,.... but talk
talk is cheap
action speaks volumes and usually gets more results
talk is good for a sunday brunch
action changes the world everyday

 

[mixedmedia]

Re:

And you think that by being an animal we can make the world better?

If I read the posts correctly it is about self-preservation, not making the world better. Of course, some choose to believe that their warmaking will make the world better - but it is and always will be a lie. Self-deception. Rationalization because they cannot manage faith in an unknown commodity. That being the power and influence non-violence can have on the world.

That and a perverse fascination with domination and aggression.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

I too would sacrifice my own life to save lives, but when it comes to killing, killing is wrong. I would do everything in my power to save those people's lives and I would do everything in my power to save my own life, but not kill.

No you wouldnt. You wouldnt do anything in your power to save peoples lives. You would rather not kill a person even though you knew he was going to detonate a ton of C4 explosives in the middle of manhattan. Because of your twisted ideal of you would never kill even if it meant insurmountable casualties in the end.

Again your ideals are admirable but they just arent conceivable in a world like this. You mean to tell me you would let a man that you knew he was going to commit Biblical attrocities)live because you dont beleive in killing. Well hate to break it to you but you just helped indirectly kill all those people he killed.

Whatever happened to the "lesser evil"?

The lessor evil would be the guy who you should kill so he woont be able to reek mass casualties.

The world is whatever it's habitant make it to be. End of story.

Your absolutely right. I cant argue facts and common sense. The habitants wmake it to be a barbarianistic world with greed at its tip. When this happens all common moralities and civility goes right down the drain. This you must understand. Now if we were living in a dream world then I would agree with your ideals at every length. However, when it comes to lessor of 2 evils your ideal is highly flawed in every shape and form.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

not at all
but by standing up and protecting, whether it is defensively or offensively, we make the world a better place

The only thing Evil needs to survive and grow, is for the Righteous to do nothing
it appears you prefer to do nothing,.... but talk
talk is cheap
action speaks volumes and usually gets more results
talk is good for a sunday brunch
action changes the world everyday

That was very well articulated. I must congratualte you on a well articulated post.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

not at all
but by standing up and protecting, whether it is defensively or offensively, we make the world a better place

By being a part of the killing, the suffering, a part of the animal, you do nothing to make the world a better place.

The only thing Evil needs to survive and grow, is for the Righteous to do nothing
it appears you prefer to do nothing,.... but talk
talk is cheap
action speaks volumes and usually gets more results
talk is good for a sunday brunch
action changes the world everyday

Why is it that "no killing" automatically means "no action"? Have you heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Have you heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi? What were they? Two idiots enjoying their sunday brunch? Did they not change the world?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

If I read the posts correctly it is about self-preservation, not making the world better. Of course, some choose to believe that their warmaking will make the world better - but it is and always will be a lie. Self-deception. Rationalization because they cannot manage faith in an unknown commodity. That being the power and influence non-violence can have on the world.

That and a perverse fascination with domination and aggression.

Warmaking isnt about making the world a better place it is about preservation of life and the way of it. However, if we didnt engage in WW1 and WW2 the world be be a worse place than it is today. So in actuality war does make the world a better place(in some cases). Now other wars are fought for the wrong reasons. Thats when it is just plain wrong.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

Why is it that "no killing" automatically means "no action"? Have you heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Have you heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi? What were they? Two idiots enjoying their sunday brunch? Did they not change the world?

are those 2 examples the only ones you can come up with in recent times
out of Billions and billions and billions, a whopping 2, you must feel really good to put yourself in their company....all 2 of them
they too were ahead of their time, and you may want to follow in their footsteps, i choose the more pragmatic and realistic path

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

By being a part of the killing, the suffering, a part of the animal, you do nothing to make the world a better place.



Why is it that "no killing" automatically means "no action"? Have you heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Have you heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi? What were they? Two idiots enjoying their sunday brunch? Did they not change the world?

Martin and Mohandas never had to deal with ruthless al qaeda and the taliban knocking on their doors becuse they want to kill everyone in their family cause they are evil (in the terroists eyes). In this situation would you just lay down for them to kill you and your whole eniter family? Or would you grow some balls of steel and man the fvck up and take care of these pathetic bastards? There are times when killing is necassary to stay alive and protect others and there are times when it is just plain careless. Again I only condone it when it is in defense of when it saves others lives.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

are those 2 examples the only ones you can come up with in recent times
out of Billions and billions and billions, a whopping 2, you must feel really good to put yourself in their company....all 2 of them
they too were ahead of their time, and you may want to follow in their footsteps, i choose the more pragmatic and realistic path

Wel there are always the tibetan monks who also beleiev in no violence. But thats why they are aways overrun by the chineese. I would love to be a pacifist but its just not pragmatic in these days in ages. I must defend myself.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

Wel there are always the tibetan monks who also beleiev in no violence. But thats why they are aways overrun by the chineese. I would love to be a pacifist but its just not pragmatic in these days in ages. I must defend myself.

i am a pacifist when times permit it
but i am ultra violent when the need arises
if it is going to be me or them, i am going to do whatever it takes to assure it is me, let the chips fall where they may

 

[MSgt]

Re:

I agree. That's why I do not recommend we engage in it.

I'm talking about where the line is, where you think it should be, whethere or not you think it exists.

I'm talking about Dresden, I'm talking about protocol on a battlefield. What to do in situations where civilians and soldiers are dressed alike. Do you shoot first or are some set of protocol or ethics in place?

Negative. We do not fire into crowds unless we can pick our targets.

It is a common practice to walk throught the crowd in a "rushed" manner firing at said targets with your firing hand and throwing civilians down with the other. This has become a part of the "work up" training before going in country.

Their ethics are to kill civilians while killing us, ours is to save civilians while killing them.

"Proffesional combat" is a very diverse and dual thing. It is not for amatures. Abu-Graib is the result of amateurs.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re:

Negative. We do not fire into crowds unless we can pick our targets.

It is a common practice to walk throught the crowd in a "rushed" manner firing at said targets with your firing hand and throwing civilians down with the other. This has become a part of the "work up" training before going in country.

Their ethics are to kill civilians while killing us, ours is to save civilians while killing them.

"Proffesional combat" is a very diverse and dual thing. It is not for amatures. Abu-Graib is the result of amateurs.

and emotionally taxing, i am sure
God bless the US Military
thank you for all the liberties i enjoy, and take for granted sometimes