• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Fallacy of human Rights in Warfare

The fact is that if you and I had never existed, absolutely nothing in government foreign policy would be different. You shouldn't try to claim control or ownership over something you don't even have the slightest influence over, let alone administration of. I agree with your more humane perspective over Goshin's more belligerent nationalist perspective, but you're making the same error in that sense.

I have every right to claim ownership and influence over my government. I served in the armed forces during war and I vote. I've paid my dues and made my contribution. Additionally, I pay taxes that help the whole machine run. This government belongs to me as much as anyone else. I take responsibility for it and do what I can to change the things I'd like to see changed. Stop acting like we live in a totalitarian state without control of our govenment. We live in a democracy and what we do and say matters, it changes things collectively and being a part of it makes you - well, a part of it.

Just because I don't control it does not mean that I am not a part of it.

An anecdote... In 2000, the presidential election was decided by ~500 votes in my city (Miami). If I had organized just a small 'voter transportation' drive at campus, I could have decided the election in the other way.

We never know how our actions might influence the future and resigning ourselves to just say "oh, well, I don't matter" is not only stupid, it is pathetic. It has only been a short time, historically, that people have had a voice in their government, control over their authorities and recourse against tyranny. Many people still live in the dark ages of totalitarianism. We are the few, who through the strength of our ancestors and just plain dumb luck... actually have control over our lives and laws. So many suffer horribly under tyranny, and you act like we don't got crap. That's sad.


Someday maybe you will join a cause or movement larger than yourself, and then you will realize that absolute control is not required to be a meaningful part of something.
 
Last edited:
I have every right to claim ownership and influence over my government. I served in the armed forces during war and I vote. I've paid my dues and made my contribution. Additionally, I pay taxes that help the whole machine run. This government belongs to me as much as anyone else.

Well, no. It belongs to you a lot less than the top-level administrators in the executive branch of the federal government that make the decisions usually attributed to "the country." You are describing things that you as an individual have marginal influence over, marginality to the point of irrelevance. We're dust motes against a hurricane, small grains of sand on the beach.

Even the example about the close vote, which was very out of the ordinary, still makes you one blank face among several hundred.
 
I'm not going to have any of your self-defeating attitude. We never know how much influence we exert. We never know all the motions and movements we help put into place. We never know all the lives we change or the people who listen. Our smallest actions can, like a speck of dust in a hurricane, change the weather on the other side of the world.

Further, I actively participate in my government. Not only do I debate politics in an effort to inform and become more informed myself, I vote and to a small extent I campaign for those I support. If you live your life thinking that you are meaningless unless you are a big fish, it's going to be a very empty life.

There are people out there without free speech and without a vote, and you want to put democracy in the same boat.

Good luck, and I hope you find a reason to live beyond pleasing yourself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to have any of your self-defeating attitude. We never know how much influence we exert. We never know all the motions and movements we help put into place. We never know all the lives we change or the people who listen. Our smallest actions can, like a speck of dust in a hurricane, change the weather on the other side of the world.

Further, I actively participate in my government. Not only do I debate politics in an effort to inform and become more informed myself, I vote and to a small extent I campaign for those I support. If you live your life thinking that you are meaningless unless you are a big fish, it's going to be a very empty life.

There are people out there without free speech and without a vote, and you want to put democracy in the same boat.

Good luck, and I hope you find a reason to live beyond pleasing yourself.

My life is fine. I know what I have the strength to change and what I don't, and I don't waste time struggling with a two-party system that will remain entirely the same without any input from me, when I can spend that time on meaningful relationships with friends and family, enjoying a good book or television show, or just relaxing with a mug.

It's true that there's an infinitesimal potential for extremely marginal actions to have very serious consequences, but it's an extremely rare exception to an extremely general rule, and I'm going with what will be 9,999 out of 10,000 times. The fact remains: No one here has administrative control over military and intelligence personnel, the primary influences behind the warfare that "the country" engages in. You, one person among hundreds of thousands, had no significant effect on the nature or activity of the armed forces in comparison to that of top-level officials. Even all of us voting together have limited effects because the vast majority of intelligence operations are hidden from us and not declassified until decades later. Do you think a referendum would have approved Operation Ajax?
 
Basically, ever since the last hundred years or so, the World has been concerned with Human rights on the battle field, but I'm going to take the road less traveled, an say that this is a fallacy. I will prove that this new trend is a fallacy by presenting two points. One, "human rights" do not exist, and two a belief in human rights has lea to more suffering than without them.

The first point I think is key, Human rights do not exist. There is no proof that any supposed "human rights" exist. Remember, for something to be a "right", it needs to be something that you are born with, and that can't be rightfully taken away from you. Also, a "right" needs to be universally recognized by all men in some way. Since a "right", by definition, comes from nature. So, if we are following nature, every group of people on the planet needs to recognize these rights. however, this is the exact opposite of what we see in real life. Every society has different interpretations of rights, and no two societies can seem to agree on exactly what constitutes a "right". Second, a right needs to be "unalienable", meaning that it can't be taken away. But we see in every society that believes in rights, these rights are rarely followed. Take world war 2 for example. The US and Brittain believed in rights, but had no problem abusing them in order to further their goals. Nor did they care about siding with one of the most human rights abusing nations in the world: the soviet union.

The next point is that following human rights in war leads to more suffering. The USA and UK in WW2 ignored human rights, and deafeted nazism. However, in many recent wars we have followed human rights, leading to quagmires. If the US would ignore these imaginary rights, we would see wars become much easier to win, and we would see less oppressive regimes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should indescriminately kill people, but I believe we should follow the wise word of Thucydides who said: "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.". So, in other word, we should follow what is best for our own civilization, no matter the cost.

So, for responses. Please write some messages that either prove that "human rights" actualy exist. Or show me that my analysis is somehow wrong.

Your analysis is wrong in that the U.S. and the U.K. did not totally abandon human rights in warfare. After all, American and British soldiers still captured German prisoners-of-war and detained them rather than just shoot them in the back of the head. Most of the rules of war were still kept to by them.

Also, while the U.S. and the U.K. allied with the U.S.S.R. during WW2, it's important to note that the U.S. and the U.K. did not adopt the policies of the U.S.S.R. and became dictatorships in their own right. So while the U.S. and the U.K. did ally with a government that dismissed human rights, they themselves did not perpetuate the abuses the U.S.S.R. did.

Another thing is that most governments tend to agree to rules of warfare for mutual benefit. Take the Red Cross, for example - their members provide aid to the wounded no matter their nationality or allegiance. So both sides of a conflict will respect the neutrality of the Red Cross so their own wounded can be helped despite the wounded of the other side getting aid as well.

One more thing is that human rights never really came to the fore until the advent of the U.N., which has helped decrease tensions between belligerent nations. And with the advent of the television and quick information of what's happening globally, people can react very fast and record what goes on in the battlefield and spread it worldwide. This has helped to put public pressure against those who abuse human rights.

So yes, your analysis is wrong.
 
Your analysis is wrong in that the U.S. and the U.K. did not totally abandon human rights in warfare.

I dont think anyone would disagree that some American and British individuals break laws and rules during warfare. But, it is sweeping to say the US and UK do it. That would mean it is the usual behaviour of most/all of them, and I dont think it is.
 
My life is fine. I know what I have the strength to change and what I don't, and I don't waste time struggling with a two-party system that will remain entirely the same without any input from me, when I can spend that time on meaningful relationships with friends and family, enjoying a good book or television show, or just relaxing with a mug.

It's true that there's an infinitesimal potential for extremely marginal actions to have very serious consequences, but it's an extremely rare exception to an extremely general rule, and I'm going with what will be 9,999 out of 10,000 times. The fact remains: No one here has administrative control over military and intelligence personnel, the primary influences behind the warfare that "the country" engages in. You, one person among hundreds of thousands, had no significant effect on the nature or activity of the armed forces in comparison to that of top-level officials. Even all of us voting together have limited effects because the vast majority of intelligence operations are hidden from us and not declassified until decades later. Do you think a referendum would have approved Operation Ajax?

sounds like someone has never heard of the Strategic Corporal concept :) even more than that, there is at least one Master Sergeant that posts on these threads, and you have no idea whom else. the Military generally discourages it's members from announcing their membership when discussing politics, for all you or I know ecofarm or samsmart is Colonel ecofarm and / or Sgt Major Samsmart.

and history is full of relatively nondescript individuals who come from a non-ruling class and have altered the path of nations. especially in our society today, determination and skill are much better indicators of what effect you will have than birth.
 
Last edited:
Basically, ever since the last hundred years or so, the World has been concerned with Human rights on the battle field, but I'm going to take the road less traveled, an say that this is a fallacy. I will prove that this new trend is a fallacy by presenting two points. One, "human rights" do not exist, and two a belief in human rights has lea to more suffering than without them.

The first point I think is key, Human rights do not exist. There is no proof that any supposed "human rights" exist. Remember, for something to be a "right", it needs to be something that you are born with, and that can't be rightfully taken away from you. Also, a "right" needs to be universally recognized by all men in some way. Since a "right", by definition, comes from nature. So, if we are following nature, every group of people on the planet needs to recognize these rights. however, this is the exact opposite of what we see in real life. Every society has different interpretations of rights, and no two societies can seem to agree on exactly what constitutes a "right". Second, a right needs to be "unalienable", meaning that it can't be taken away. But we see in every society that believes in rights, these rights are rarely followed. Take world war 2 for example. The US and Brittain believed in rights, but had no problem abusing them in order to further their goals. Nor did they care about siding with one of the most human rights abusing nations in the world: the soviet union.

The next point is that following human rights in war leads to more suffering. The USA and UK in WW2 ignored human rights, and deafeted nazism. However, in many recent wars we have followed human rights, leading to quagmires. If the US would ignore these imaginary rights, we would see wars become much easier to win, and we would see less oppressive regimes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should indescriminately kill people, but I believe we should follow the wise word of Thucydides who said: "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.". So, in other word, we should follow what is best for our own civilization, no matter the cost.

So, for responses. Please write some messages that either prove that "human rights" actualy exist. Or show me that my analysis is somehow wrong.

If you're analyzing rights from a natural law point of view, then it doesn't make any difference whether they're recognized. They exist because they come from nature. If you're analyzing from a positivist point of view, they exist to the extent that they are recognized, whether universally or not. As it happens, the Geneva Convention establishes rights that are universally recognized for all intents and purposes. So, either way, I would disagree with your analysis. Human rights do exist in warfare.
 
The a-bombs targeted Japan's ability to wage war and/or resist US invasion. Dresden targetted an industrial area, that might not have needed to be destroyed in order to end the war in a timely manner. While it is debatable if firebombing Dresden was necessary, it is NOT debatable that the a-bombs prevented far more suffering than they caused and the decision to use them was merciful to humanity.


In neither case were civilians 'targetted'. You need to clarify your understanding of the words 'targetted' and 'collateral'. Just as it is today, the collateral damage was deemed worth the benefit to humanity.

Not so. The US intentionally targeted civilians, which was a war crime and an act of terrorism. Nuking Japan was neither necessary nor merciful. If we'd been interested in saving lives, we would have allowed them to surrender.
 
Well - others covered the rest of your argument, so I'll pick this part:

Basically, ever since the last hundred years or so, the World has been concerned with Human rights on the battle field,

#1 - Human "rights" have always been granted, been considered, been taken into account, been given leniency or regard by almost every culture throughout history - in every war.
#2 - The Nature of these "rights" changes culture to culture and belief to belief.
#3 - Denying certain rights - especially during wartime - by many cultures had serious implications for the living/dead - which is why they were adhered to and considered a "right" to begin with.

I think if you understand that rights aren't *just* the ones granted to you when you're born: body in tact, right to clean air, etc (face it, these are the only things that are born-with rights because you need them to survive and taking them away will hinder you or end you). There are other rights (as others have discussed) - god-given rights, government-granted rights and so on.

A good example of this history of 'rights' is from the Ancient Greeks. They believed that it was someone's God-given and undeniable RIGHT to be treated with respect, honored and buried after death. They believed that if you were killed on the battle field and not properly given postmortem care (memorial of some nature, proper burial, etc) or if your body was desecrated then your "soul" would be condemned. (to put it in modern terms). thus - they would actually stop a fight on all sides to permit those still living to care for the rights of the dead.

Other cultures had similar beliefs about the rights of the deceased and it's such an important part of our modern life, as well, and so we secure this for our troops in battle even though many of us, even those who are religious, no longer hold the belief that one is condemned to hell if their body on earth is desecrated.

So it's not that rights only *just now* have come into play - it's now that regular people like you and me are granted rights that might not have been considered important centuries ago. And rights have changed, but the value of those rights have remained the same.

Key point: rights aren't just those that you're born with . . . you can gain new rights (or lose those rights) depending on where you live, how you live, and what you do with your life. Things are generally defined as a 'right' when the absence of it would hinder your ability to function like the rest of those around you - or condemn you (like when a person commits a felony and then is denied the right to vote)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom