The Fallacy of human Rights in Warfare

[ecofarm]

"Our capacity for humanity is indeed a show of our strength... and much of it would vanish like snowflakes on an oven if we were on the verge of extermination. "

I disagree. Only tyrants and oppressors flail in their death throes. Honest and decent men know their sacrifice is not in vain, for good shall prevail.





"And we know we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil." -Marley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9CG2iE2vxU

 

[Chuz Life]

"Our capacity for humanity is indeed a show of our strength... and much of it would vanish like snowflakes on an oven if we were on the verge of extermination. "

I disagree. Only tyrants and oppressors flail in their death throes. Honest and decent men know their sacrifice is not in vain, for good shall prevail.

I think you are mischaracterizing the resolve that Goshin is talking about.

It wouldn't be "flailing."

It would be more along the lines of "equal force."

Think along the lines of an act of self defense.

In an act of self defense,.... you are only supposed to use the amount of force necessary to defend yourself,... and not to use "excessive force."

That said,... in an act of self defense where a peson hasn't the time they might have in hindsight to measure their response,....

They do what they feel they have to do while in the moment and then try to learn from the experience later.

 

[ecofarm]

Self-defense is moral and humane by definition. Terrorists are not acting in self-defense; this is no excuse for them. They are acting in defense of their tyranical power. They could lay down their arms and join the 21st century (or, 20th, at least).

Losing one's humanity (even in self-defense, as you have noted) would certainly be "flailing", ideologically, and desperately so. It is likely the final step before descending into madness and losing all of one's values in psychosis.

 

[Goshin]

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.

There is more than a little debate on that point. While the "official" policy may well have de-emphasized that we were attacking civilians, many believe it was indeed deliberate and an attempt to destroy the enemy morale and civilian support for the war by bringing the war home to the people whose work in the factories made it possible.

Regardless, we certainly knew that tens of thousands of "innocent" civilian men women and children were going to die in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We considered this fact, and contrasted it to our goals of defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and we decided it was worth it.

Think about that: We decided that it was okay to kill pregnant mothers, little babies, small children, half-grown boys and girls, in the tens of thousands, to achieve our goals.

I agree that on that whole it was worth it. The Axis powers had to be stopped and in order to stop them we had to hurt them very badly. The quicker we stopped the war, the sooner it would be over and hopefully the fewer people would die.

I personally don't have a problem with that decision. I'm just trying to get you to look at it on a fundamental level and realize what an ugly thing we did in those three cities. I'm not arguing its necessity, I'm just asking you to smell the burning flesh of the pregnant mothers, hear the screams of the little girls burning alive, and accept that under normal circumstances we consider such actions to be morally abominable. We justified our actions out of strategic necessity and the HOPE that the long-term result would be fewer lives lost.

I believe in looking reality in the face, in the raw. I accept that what we did was both horrible and necessary; morally appalling in the detail even if morally correct in the abstract, after the fact..

I just don't believe in painting a pretty picture over the horror and ignoring it. Burning children alive is horrible, in the normal course of events it is something none of us would want to do. In the course of nations clashing and survival or slavery being the stakes, it may be a regrettable necessity.

But, let's don't ever try to claim that burning thousands of children alive is humane. It isn't. It may be strategically justified; it may be necessary; it may be for the hope of a quick end to a terrible war and a return to normalcy; but we should never pretend that it is humane.

 

[Chuz Life]

Self-defense is moral and humane by definition. Terrorists are not acting in self-defense; this is no excuse for them. They are acting in defense of their tyranical power. They could lay down their arms and join the 21st century (or, 20th, at least).

I was speaking more along the lines of what our (measured) response should be towards a terrorist or group of terrorists.

 

[ecofarm]

@Goshin:

If you do not understand the unfortunate need to accept collateral damage, then we must simply agree to disagree. You think collateral damage is the equivalent of murder and targetting civilians, I don't. I see a bigger picture, and I weep for all the innocents who suffer and die because of what is necessary.

 

[Goshin]

Self-defense is moral and humane by definition. Terrorists are not acting in self-defense; this is no excuse for them. They are acting in defense of their tyranical power. They could lay down their arms and join the 21st century (or, 20th, at least).

Losing one's humanity (even in self-defense, as you have noted) would certainly be "flailing", ideologically, and desperately so. It is likely the final step before descending into madness and losing all of one's values in psychosis.

Hm. I think we have a definitional problem, and I think it is that word "humane".

Is it humane to gouge out someone's eye? Most people would say "no".

It is humane to gouge out someone's eye, while you're trying to keep him from raping your 10yo daughter?

Well..... let's think about that a minute, instead of just knee-jerking in reaction.

It's self-defense, or more precisely in defense of a third party too weak to protect herself.

It wouldn't be excessive to stop a man from raping a child.

Okay, so we can justify it. We can say that it is more humane to do what you must to spare the 10yo girl from rape, and I agree wholeheartedly.

However, gouging someone's eye out is not normally considered "humane" by any stretch of the imagination, absent the context I put it in above. It isn't something you'd normally do in a boxing match... and you wouldn't normally do it to a drunk who attacked you if you felt confident of handling him with lesser modes of force.

My point is that our definition of "humane" varied depending on what the context is. The more desperate we are, the more dire the situation, the more unthinkable the consequences of losing the fight... the more likely we are to do things normally considered "inhumane".

 

[Chuz Life]

@Goshin:

If you do not understand the unfortunate need to accept collateral damage, then we must simply agree to disagree. You think collateral damage is the equivalent of murder and targetting civilians, I don't. I see a bigger picture, and I weep for all the innocents who suffer and die because of what is necessary.

My last on it;

It looks to me like you are both trying to say the same things with emphasis in slightly different places.

Just my two centavos.

 

[ecofarm]

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is humane.

The a-bombs were humane, merciful even. They spared humanity more suffering than they caused.


@Chuz:

He thinks people are inherently evil, that collateral damage equals murder and that anytime a civilian has been hit they have been targetted. Those things I strongly disagree with. The only thing he seems to agree with me on is that humanity is a show of strength (but he thinks so for different reasons).

 

[Goshin]

@Goshin:

If you do not understand the unfortunate need to accept collateral damage, then we must simply agree to disagree. You think collateral damage is the equivalent of murder and targetting civilians, I don't. I see a bigger picture, and I weep for all the innocents who suffer and die because of what is necessary.

My dear and intresting and slightly annoying friend, I do indeed understand the unfortunate need to accept collateral damage. If you read my posts carefully, you should realize that I am OKAY with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. I understand the necessity because I too see a bigger picture.

My point is that just because there is a bigger picture that must be considered doesn't make it any less ugly, and it doesn't make allowing little girls to burn to death "humane". It means that our definition of "humane" varies depending on what is at stake.... which has been my point all along.

 

[Ockham]

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is humane.

It's also a line from a Star Trek movie.

 

[Chuz Life]

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is humane.

The a-bombs were humane, merciful even. They spared humanity more suffering than they caused.

@Chuz:

He thinks people are inherently evil, that collateral damage equals murder and that anytime a civilian has been hit they have been targetted. Those things I strongly disagree with. The only thing he seems to agree with me on is that humanity is a show of strength.

Sorry Eco,... that's not the impression I get from what Goshin says.

Maybe it's because I've known him longer,... read a lot more of his posts, etc.

 

[Goshin]

My last on it;

It looks to me like you are both trying to say the same things with emphasis in slightly different places.

Just my two centavos.

We seem to be talking past each other. Or at least, either I'm not explaining well or he's not listening well. :mrgreen:

 

[ecofarm]

My point is that just because there is a bigger picture that must be considered doesn't make it any less ugly,

Actually, yes it does. A million dead to liberate people from a genocidal dictator looks alot less ugly than a million dead to commit genocide. If the latter precedes the former, it starts to look even better.


We only agree on one thing: humanity in war is a show of strength.

We disagree on why, we disagree on "humane" changing since WWII and we disagree on the nature of humanity.

That's ok. We can leave it where it is. Neither of us must convince the other. gg

 

[Goshin]

Actually, yes it does. A million dead to liberate people from a genocidal dictator looks alot less ugly than a million dead to commit genocide. If the latter precedes the former, it starts to look even better.


We only agree on one thing: humanity in war is a show of strength.

We disagree on why, we disagree on "humane" changing since WWII and we disagree on the nature of humanity.

That's ok. We can leave it where it is. Neither of us must convince the other. gg

:shrug: I'm not really concerned overmuch with convincing you. The thing that bothers me is that I don't think you understand the point I was making.

Or possibly we are operating on such different assumptions that we just aren't communicating well. I'll try once more.

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is humane.

The a-bombs were humane, merciful even. They spared humanity more suffering than they caused.


@Chuz:

He thinks people are inherently evil, that collateral damage equals murder and that anytime a civilian has been hit they have been targetted. Those things I strongly disagree with. The only thing he seems to agree with me on is that humanity is a show of strength (but he thinks so for different reasons).

:no: Sigh. Perhaps I am expressing myself poorly.

I do not equate "collateral damage" with murder. Murder is an unlawful killing. Collateral damage is when a civilian gets in the line of fire or lives next door to the munitions plant we bomb, or in the city we choose to nuke. No, I DON'T think that everytime a civilian gets hit they were targeted...you're not following my point at all. :slapme:

If we have to kill civilians to win a war, then hand me the bomb-release button.... I will push it. I am not some bleeding-heart pacifist, far from it.

Let me try again.

The guys who dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... I've seen interviews with them. Good guys. Probably nice to their families, good to their kids. I have nothing against them.

In the normal course of events, not the sort of guys who would light a ten-year old girl on fire for most any reason.

When they dropped the A-bombs on the two Japanese cities, though, they did exactly that. They set little girls (and women and men and boys) on fire. Yes, many were lucky enough to be vaporized before they knew what happened, but some were burned badly and died over the course of days of agony.

Humane? Normally we'd say no. If the news reported some wacko set a 10yo girl on fire and watched her burn to death, we'd all think "how sick, that bastard needs to fry!"

Context. We were desperate to end the war without having to invade mainland Japan, and the huge loss of life that would entail.... so we decided that burning little girls to death in Nagasaki was okay if we managed to make the war end.

I'm deliberately describing it in ugly and harsh terms because it IS harsh and ugly. I also believe it was justified and necessary. That doesn't change the fact that burning little girls is not humane and that outside of the context of a desperate war we call people who do such things "sociopaths" and we lock them up or execute them.

Again, don't misunderstand me... if any of them are still alive, I'll shake the hand of the crew of the bombers and buy them a beer. My FATHER would have been part of the invasion of mainland Japan if it hadn't been for the Nukes, and he might well have been killed. He was in the Army at the time. I was as yet unborn... so in a sense I might owe my existence to Fat Man and Little Boy. :rofl:

Now, I seem to have wandered far afield and lost my train of thought... :slapme:

Oh, yes. Humane is one thing, justifiable is another. Setting one little girl on fire to save a hundred little girls from the same fate, might be net value = humane.... but the act itself isn't, even if it is necessary and justifiable.

I just put things a little more bluntly than you're used to, I think.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't think acts can be judged as humane without context. I don't mean historical era or culture, but specifics. The states of "dead" or "burned" are not humane (or not) in and of themselves; they are merely states of being and largely irrelevant to the humanity of the act that lead to those states. Given the avoidance of many more casualities, the a-bombs were humane.


Sorry I thought you were equating collateral damage to murder, as it appeared you were saying the a-bombs would have violated current policy against "targetting civilians". Because of this:

For one thing, existing military policy is minimizing "collateral damage" and no deliberate targeting of civilians. Certainly all three examples violate that policy.

The examples do not, in fact, violate said policy as civilians were not targetted. Also, we didn't have laser-guided bombs and other such precision ordnance then. We did the best we could, with what we had, under the same principles we hold today.

There does seem to be a modern aversion to using nukes, or targeting civilians, that was far less notable in 1945.

Who targetted civilians in 1945? Have you not stated that the a-bombs targetted Japan's ability to wage war? Are you a Dresden CTer? Dresden might have been a mistake, but it was not intentionally targetting civilians or unduly causing suffering for that purpose.

 

[Goshin]

I don't think acts can be judged as humane without context. I don't mean historical era or culture, but specifics. The states of "dead" or "burned" are not humane (or not) in and of themselves; they are merely states of being and largely irrelevant to the humanity of the act that lead to those states. Given the avoidance of many more casualities, the a-bombs were humane.


Sorry I thought you were equating collateral damage to murder, as it appeared you were saying the a-bombs would have violated current policy against "targetting civilians". Because of this:



The examples do not, in fact, violate said policy as civilians were not targetted. Also, we didn't have laser-guided bombs and other such precision ordnance then. We did the best we could, with what we had, under the same principles we hold today.




Who targetted civilians in 1945? Have you not stated that the a-bombs targetted Japan's ability to wage war? Are you a Dresden CTer? Dresden might have been a mistake, but it was not intentionally targetting civilians or unduly causing suffering for that purpose.

I give up. You seem to insist on seeing things through an idealistic lens instead of looking squarely at the raw reality. You apparently think I'm some bleeding-heart leftist too. :roll:

 

[ecofarm]

You seem to insist on seeing things through an idealistic lens instead of looking squarely at the raw reality.

You're the one who thinks we've improved. My position is "same crap, different day". How does that make me the idealist?

You apparently think I'm some bleeding-heart leftist too.

I never wrote any such thing. I dealt only with your posts, as I have no idea of your politics. Don't persecute yourself through me, thanks.

 

[Goshin]

You're the one who thinks we've improved. My position is "same crap, different day". How does that make me the idealist?



I never wrote any such thing. I dealt only with your posts, as I have no idea of your politics. Don't persecute yourself through me, thanks.

:lamo Bit testy are we? Self-persecution is not one of my faults, I love me unconditionally. :mrgreen:

I never said we had improved, far from it. Public attitudes have certainly changed, far more people take issue with "collateral damage" than was the case in 1945.
I said that the only reason we weren't using total war methods in the present day is because we aren't as scared of our present set of enemies, as we were of the Axis in WW2... and that that is because the situation is not, at present, as direly desperate as those times were.

You are aware that the concept of warfare changed after WW2? That the "total war" concept gave way to the "limited war" concept, a paradigm we're still using today?

Which goes back to my original statement that you took issue with. Humane treatment of the enemy is a luxury we indulge in when we are not terrified that our very existence or way of life is about to be extinguished. When the latter applies, we tend to be much less concerned with being humane and much more concerned with survival and victory.

I also stated that we would go back to wholesale bombing and accepting massive civilian collateral damage if things got to the point that we feared for our existence again.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you disagree with me so vehemently... unless you think that policy, strategy, tactics and public opinion have not changed at all since 1945?

 

[Cochise]

Actually, Goshin, the reason that "we" aren't doing those things is because you and ecofarm aren't doing anything in terms of making administrative decisions about military campaigns, making the possessive pronoun inaccurate.

 

[ecofarm]

Trying to separate people from their government and authority is a sure sign of a tyrant

I think it is important that we take responsibility for what our government does, or why even have representation. "Us" and "them" is no good between people and their authority. 'Of, by and for the people', buddy. Go make your own constitution if you want. You can make it something akin to 'mind your personal business and shut up' if you like, but that there is how we see it here.



"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" -Lincoln

 

[ecofarm]

It began with this...

I'm pointing out that TODAY, Dresden Hiroshima Nagasaki would be contrary to existing US policy on "targeting civilians", the media would **** kittens sideways, and half the population of the USA would call the bombing and all involved babykilling fascists.

Only if we remove all context! In the same context, we do the same thing. Nothing has changed.


And ends with this...

I never said we had improved, far from it.

How is this your next sentence?

Public attitudes have certainly changed, far more people take issue with "collateral damage" than was the case in 1945.

It seems to me that being concerned with collateral damage is a good thing.

You are aware that the concept of warfare changed after WW2? That the "total war" concept gave way to the "limited war" concept, a paradigm we're still using today?

Yes, and you were trying to claim that using events from the total war and putting them as unacceptable "TODAY" has meaning. You are comparing apples and oranges. Total war and today. If we were in total war today and all things being equal we would do the same today. The things that we did do not violate any modern convention or war-time behavioral expectations. Nothing has changed. If we had reason to bomb Tehran, we would - we might.

Which goes back to my original statement that you took issue with. Humane treatment of the enemy is a luxury we indulge in when we are not terrified that our very existence or way of life is about to be extinguished. When the latter applies, we tend to be much less concerned with being humane and much more concerned with survival and victory.

And I take issue with this. It is incorrect. Inhumane behavior is not the result of desperation, it is the result of ideology.

I also stated that we would go back to wholesale bombing and accepting massive civilian collateral damage if things got to the point that we feared for our existence again.

Of course, because under the circumstances it is humane. There are no different levels of humanity here, through which we transition according to desperation. We have and always will do what is necessary to create the most good for the most people. Right now, limited war is necessary; that might change and our values remain entirely intact.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you disagree with me so vehemently... unless you think that policy, strategy, tactics and public opinion have not changed at all since 1945?

First, I do not think that policy, strategy or tactics have changed appreciably since 1945. The changes that have occured result from technology and mission, not morals or ethics.

Second, I disagree with these statements specifically:

Humane behavior towards the enemy is a luxury, that you can only afford when the survival of all that you hold dear is not at stake.

False. Our humanity is the result of ideology, not desperation or luxury.

If our fear was greater, we'd be less squeamish.

False. Fear does not determine one's level of humanity.

Our capacity for humanity is indeed a show of our strength... and much of it would vanish like snowflakes on an oven if we were on the verge of extermination.

False. Our humanity is not rooted in fear or domination. It is rooted in what we believe in, our ideology.

It may be strategically justified; it may be necessary; it may be for the hope of a quick end to a terrible war and a return to normalcy; but we should never pretend that it is humane.

Ending a terrible war with minimal casualties and suffering is, in fact, humane. Lack of seeing the bigger picture - a myopic illusion - is the only way to believe otherwise.

Also (side bickerings)...

If the Axis wasn't stopped, they wouldn't stop until they ruled the world with a system and a methodology most of us would find abhorrent.

Japan didn't have a shot at ruling the world at that point, but their government still needed to be overthrown for the good of humanity.

In short, humanity took a backseat to survival.

No, our survival was not at stake when we dropped the bombs. But doing so provided the most good for the most people.



Ultimately, we do not target civilians. Not then, not now, not ever. It is inhumane to murder and never in the history of the US has targetting civilians been considered acceptable by a duly elected government of the people. Officers go insane, and mistakes happen; however, our values in the humane treatment of people have not altered since 1945. We do what is needed to help the most people while causin as little harm as possible. Today, this takes the form of limited war; tomorrow, we will have the same value of humane treatment and could be in total war.

You seem to think that total war is humanely different than limited war. It is not. Both are based on doing the most good AND the least harm. Further, to consider us as having changed our level of humanity or humane treatment of others, we would need to engage in acts that were deemed unacceptable previously (context intact, of course... merely changing the date). Fact is, you cannot demonstrate that our humane treatment has changed or will change.

We have never targetted civilians, we have always done the least harm possible. Circumstances may change, but our humanity remains the same.

Any loss of humanity is not the result of changing circumstances, but changing beliefs. If the US was on the losing end of the war on terror tomorrow, we would not start targetting children.

 

[Goshin]

You're still missing my point, and I'm tired of trying to explain it.

 

[ecofarm]

Not at all, you are missing mine.

Losing ones humanity is a function of ideology, NOT desperation. Blaming circumstances for inhuman behaviour is BS. It's moral relativist BS - nothing more, and unsupported in any intellectually honest examination of history. Wrap your moral relativism in any historically revisionist blanket you want, I see it for what it is.

"The circumstances justified the action" (even if only in the minds of the perpetrators) doesn't cut it in my book. Anyway, you were wrong about the circumstances (Japan was NOT poised to conquer the world when the a-bombs were dropped) and dishonest about the action (treating the a-bombs and Dresden as targetting civilians, and different than current policy). It took awhile to get to the heart of the matter because your layers of BS were thick and wrought with inaccuracies, but it boils down to this: you are advocating moral relativism as a consequence of circumstance. And that's crap.

It's the same old "if we were in the terrorists position, we would do what they do". Disgusting apologism. I'm sure they thank you for portraying them as perfectly rational and reasonable people, but I don't.

 

[Cochise]

Trying to separate people from their government and authority is a sure sign of a tyrant

I think it is important that we take responsibility for what our government does, or why even have representation. "Us" and "them" is no good between people and their authority. 'Of, by and for the people', buddy. Go make your own constitution if you want. You can make it something akin to 'mind your personal business and shut up' if you like, but that there is how we see it here

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.