PDA

View Full Version : Is war morally justifiable?


C'jais
03-01-2003, 06:23 PM
Assuming that there'll always be civilian casualties in war.

Fire away.

obi
03-01-2003, 07:07 PM
The Iraq war, or war as in war itself?

Sometimes, the only way to make peace is to declare war. Justifiable or not, I'm not sure. I guess it would depend on the situation.

Example:

If there were some sort of American citizens being held or executed by some other country's government for no reason, surely America would send troops to rescue them.

C'jais
03-01-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
The Iraq war, or war as in war itself?

;)

War.

Sometimes, the only way to make peace is to declare war.

So peace is attained by declaring war? Wow.

I'm sure you meant "to wage" war - although I don't know for sure.

Justifiable or not, I'm not sure. I guess it would depend on the situation.

Yeah, of course it'd depend on the situation, as all things do, but take the biggies as an example: WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Gulf war 1 etc.

Example:

If there were some sort of American citizens being held or executed by some other country's government for no reason, surely America would send troops to rescue them.

In that specific example, I'm pretty sure whatever country was holding the citizens hostage would execute them before any sort of rescue operation would get near them - which would quite likely start a war in itself.

C'jais
03-01-2003, 07:22 PM
What I'm hinting at here, could be the human shields in Iraq.

If they're standing near water purification and power plants, are they siding with the enemy, or the civilians inside? Did you know that such structures are legimate military targets in war?

If the human shields are killed by the US military, is it then rank hypocrisy to use the moral outcry of "But Saddam kills his own people!"?

munik
03-01-2003, 09:12 PM
Infrastructure is one of the first things to go in a war. If you are the attacker, and you get repelled, you still put a big hurt by destroying as much of the infrastructure as possible. And by big hurt I mean damage that can take decades to recover from. Anyone attacked by a competent military will be utterly ruined, regardless of the outcome of the war.

The whole human shield thing is lame. It's like someone saying, "You wouldn't hit a man wearing glasses in the face, would you?". The point being are that the glasses are incidental if you intend to pop someone in the face, yet people try and play the pity card. Same goes with human shields. People die in military conflicts. But no one is innocent. So take pity if you want, but the man squeezing the trigger sure ain't.

Reborn Outcast
03-01-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
If they're standing near water purification and power plants, are they siding with the enemy, or the civilians inside? Did you know that such structures are legimate military targets in war?

I don't think that the US will hit those places. Bush says he's going to try to rebuild Iraq if the US declares war so I don't think he would want to destroy those things... just more money to spend to build new ones. BUT this isn't an Iraq debate so who cares. :D

Originally posted by C'jais
If the human shields are killed by the US military, is it then rank hypocrisy to use the moral outcry of "But Saddam kills his own people!"?

If it is an intentional killing then, yes its hypocracy. But if its an accident... like one idiot runs out into crossfire and is killed, then no its not hypocracy.




War (in general) should be avoided at all costs. It is better to try to forge a peace treaty first rather than go to war automatically. There are some exceptions however. Take WW2 for example. Hitler was killing the Jewish people for no reason at all except that he hated them. That in its self is a terrible act. To forge a peace treaty with him would have outraged all the Jews in the world for him not being brought to justice. Also, he was trying to take over the whole of Europe, and then perhaps, the world. How can you forge a peace treaty with a man like that? By offering him part of your land? Noone wanted to do that so, war was justifiable for the European countries. The US did a good job of trying to stay out of it but then Japan attacked and destroyed the Pacific fleet. War for the US was justifiable but what they did in killing so many civilians with the A-Bomb was questionable.

munik
03-01-2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
. Take WW2 for example. Hitler was killing the Jewish people for no reason at all except that he hated them. That in its self is a terrible act. To forge a peace treaty with him would have outraged all the Jews in the world for him not being brought to justice. Um, I'm pretty sure that the whole Holocaust wasn't common knowledge until the Allies made it into Germany and stumbled upon the concentration camps. Do you actually think that the U.S. would have waited years to do anything about if they knew?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
.The US did a good job of trying to stay out of it but then Japan attacked and destroyed the Pacific fleet. War for the US was justifiable but what they did in killing so many civilians with the A-Bomb was questionable. Um, yep, here again, Japan never destroyed the Pacific fleet. If that had happened, then that would mean Japan had defeated the U.S. in the Pacific theater before the U.S. had even engaged in the Pacific theater. A paradox of sorts. But, as Fatman and Little Boy can attest, that was definately not the case.

So, I'm curious, do they even offer a history course in the school you attend?

Reborn Outcast
03-02-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by munik
Japan never destroyed the Pacific fleet.

What did they destroy then? I did not mean ALL of it. And do you even see my point? Are you saying that all war is wrong or are you just trying to start something?

Reborn Outcast
03-02-2003, 12:13 AM
Munik it seems that we have gotten off to a bad start. Let me try it again. I was trying to give an example of when the only was to make peace was to wage war. Sorry if it came out wrong.


And no, US history is a junior class... i'm a sophmore. :D

munik
03-02-2003, 12:17 AM
I like the conflict.

Anyhow, 21 ships and 188 aircraft were destroyed during the raid. But, afterwards, 18 of the 21 ships were raised and repaired. So, a total of 3 ships totally out of commission. Hardly the entire fleet.

RpTheHotrod
03-02-2003, 12:37 AM
I'm just going to quote a conversation with a solider---

Interviewer: I know killing enemy soliders is common for you, but how are you able to kill the women and children?

Soldier: Oh, it's easy, I just don't lead them as much.

munik
03-02-2003, 12:42 AM
Good one. I bet no one here has ever seen Full Metal Jacket.

SkinWalker
03-02-2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm just going to quote a conversation with a solider---

Interviewer: I know killing enemy soliders is common for you, but how are you able to kill the women and children?

Soldier: Oh, it's easy, I just don't lead them as much.

A bit misleading... that quote. Seeing as how it came from the movie, "Full Metal Jacket" when Private Joker was interviewing the M-60 Door Gunner of a UH-1.

The problem in Iraq (as with many tyrannical rulers) is that most military targets are positioned intentionally near soft, civilian targets. This is for two reasons: 1) it causes hesitation for the person either ordering the attack or carrying it out and 2) it gives reason to denounce and criticize the attacker afterward.

Is "war morally justifiable?" That depends on your moral values. I get the feeling that there are those that think it would be morally unjust not to go to war for what the believe. Even if what they believe is that war will make them great.

I think there are times that war between humans is inevitable. It doesn't matter in these instances whether it is right or wrong becuase it will happen. It is adventageous to be prepared when it does.

I do not, however, think that there is a justifiable reason to go to war with Iraq at this point in time, but this is based on my own set of values, morals and sense of ethics. Others, even those that agree with my position, have differring sets of ethics.

Peace is preferrable to war, but it's nice to carry a big stick.

SkinWalker

obi
03-02-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by munik
Good one. I bet no one here has ever seen Full Metal Jacket.
I have:)

@C'Jais Yes, I meant "wage" war. ;)

Azrael
03-03-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
Sometimes, the only way to make peace is to declare war.

Another good one is something like, "The only future peace has to bring, is war."

I think war will exist no matter who's dead, and who's alive. No human beings can get along together forever. Even if it's someone you love more than life itself, eventually you will find things about them you hate. Doesn't matter how small it is, you'll hate it.

RpTheHotrod
03-03-2003, 03:38 AM
Actually, a soldier did say that in an interview. Probably got it from the movie, but that's what he said.

Don't forget...peace really means "I'm reloading"

Kain
03-03-2003, 01:07 PM
soldiers and their commanders arent trained to be hesitant. take this example from my 8th grade Social Studies teacher:

everyone knows about the tomb of the unknown soldier, and how the tomb is guarded at all times by 2 rifle wielding marines. well, on one of her trips to Washington DC, she was out sightseeing when she seen a small child (3-5 yrs old) wandering about. well, the child got a bit close to the tomb, the marine told him to hault, the child didnt, the child got bayonetted in the chest.

I don't think the soldiers will cease fire if some assclown camel jockey runs into the fray going 'CHUM CHUMLBOOO!!!' or whatever

Note: sorry for the racist comments and all. just tryin to get my point across. if you're offended, PM me

C'jais
03-03-2003, 06:17 PM
I believe nations must put aside their morals, ethics and religion when examining how to rationally secure peace in the world.

the child got a bit close to the tomb, the marine told him to hault, the child didnt, the child got bayonetted in the chest.

Err. I find this a bit hard to believe. So, a child got killed from stepping too close to the hallowed site of a dead marine? Sounds brutal.

Nitro
03-04-2003, 12:40 AM
The story's bull****. It's been going around since the tomb was, um, built.

Kain
03-04-2003, 12:43 AM
hey, I never said it was true. I'm just telling you what I've heard. Was I there? No. Did I see it? Obviously not. Are soldiers trained to carry out their orders? You're damn right.

Ratmjedi
03-04-2003, 03:31 AM
But soldiers are always going to question their orders. They will not just kill someone cause they got to close to a tomb. They are always thinking in their head whether or not it is right.


They also do become brutal when it becomes a matter of my life or his. Soldiers never follow their orders to the word. They always make an exception around it and by justifying it by saying that their orders did not cover that topic.

But war can be justified . But like people before me have said it depends on the circumstances. We didn't know about the Concentration camp's untill about the last year of the war, We were there because the Germans were allied with the Japan and we had had been attacked by them. Alliances are deadly and half the time are reasons that war's get so big. You can always justify a war if you find a way and you can always critque it aswell. It just depends on what the majority feel and how much support each one gets.

I also have seen Full Metal Jacket :D

:duel: :lsduel:

griff38
03-04-2003, 10:19 AM
Munik said, " Do you actually think that the U.S. would have waited years to do anything about if they knew?

YES,

Well my friend iam afraid that your wrong about this. The U.S. and Britian did many legal and ilegal things to keep Jews fleeing Nazi Tyranny from entering either nation prior and even during the war.

Even someone with a 2 digit IQ back in the 30's new that Germany was bootstomping all over the Jewish Germans.

ANti-semitism in the US & Britain was almost as bad as in Germany. Britain would only allow 500 German Jews to enter Britain each month prior to 1942.(also only the most wealthy were allowed in) This was done under total secrecy to avoid insighting the anti jewish element.

In the US, Joseph Kennedy (John Kennedys father) was the US ambassador to Britain. He did everything in his power to minimize what the Germans were doing to the Jews. He was1 of the most powerful men in the US and he hated Jews, Lied to Roosevelt about how bad it really was and used every bit of influence he had to minimize what was really happening.

It would really nice if all the bad guys wore black capes and all the good guys were cool looking and nevr make any mistakes, like in our favorite movies.

But it never works that way.

SkinWalker
03-04-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by griff38
It would really nice if all the bad guys wore black capes and all the good guys were cool looking and nevr make any mistakes, like in our favorite movies.

Didn't someone once say, "I have seen our enemy and it is us?"

__________________

Speaking of justifieable war, Griff... I *did* notice that you had my back.... it was a chaotic battle indeed. I heard "5 minutes remaining" and thought I'd try to get a lick or two in on ya, but mostly out of good clean fun.... :p That and I just watched the demo of you sniping right before going online *lol* I did much better in the next "Justifiable War" on Bespin... 2nd place ;) Uhhh... did my pathetic attempts to stay on topic fly?

ShadowTemplar
03-04-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The problem in Iraq (as with many tyrannical rulers) is that most military targets are positioned intentionally near soft, civilian targets. This is for two reasons: 1) it causes hesitation for the person either ordering the attack or carrying it out and 2) it gives reason to denounce and criticize the attacker afterward.

3) Ease of transportation of personnel and equipment. Seriously: Why place your installations far away from nothing? It would only make it more costly and time-consumeing to transport your men for a night off in town... I don't think that placing "hard" and "soft" targets at the same place is solely a mean plot to discredit any attacker. Sure, it's a nice bonus, but I think that the main concern is a logistical one. And the scale civilian casualties aren't regarded as important by this kind of people.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I think there are times that war between humans is inevitable. It doesn't matter in these instances whether it is right or wrong becuase it will happen. It is adventageous to be prepared when it does.

I agree. It's like asking whether it's morally unjustifyable to die from cancer...

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Peace is preferrable to war, but it's nice to carry a big stick.

LOL. True, true...

Reborn Outcast
03-04-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
everyone knows about the tomb of the unknown soldier, and how the tomb is guarded at all times by 2 rifle wielding marines. well, on one of her trips to Washington DC, she was out sightseeing when she seen a small child (3-5 yrs old) wandering about. well, the child got a bit close to the tomb, the marine told him to hault, the child didnt, the child got bayonetted in the chest.

This is amazingly hard to believe. The soldier would have most likely been arrested for murder. The child had no idea what it was doing. Its false.

daring dueler
03-04-2003, 05:35 PM
the bayonet story could not be true and if so that one man chosen from the best of the best ws at fault and woulda been court martialed and imprisoned. and i beleive there is only one marine there at a time.

munik
03-04-2003, 09:52 PM
There's two at the changing of the guard. But that's expected :)

Kain
03-04-2003, 10:34 PM
I already said i'm just repeating what I said. So if its false, drop it. Nobody cares if its false. I know I wouldn't care if it was true. Little bastard shoulda stayed with his mother instead of running off. And even if it was true, I'm sure the soldier wouldn't of been tried, the government would have for issuing him the order.

SkinWalker
03-05-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Little bastard ...

Ahh... so he was fatherless? ;)

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
And even if it was true, I'm sure the soldier wouldn't of been tried, the government would have for issuing him the order.

It would have been an "Unlawful Order," which is described as:
(1) Direct the commission of a crime.
(2) Interfere with the private rights or personal affairs of others.
(3) Conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.

Tomb guards are given, in addition to their General Orders, 3 Special Orders:
(1) I will prevent any desecration to the Tomb and irreverent or unseemly acts in its imediate vicinity.
(2) When circumstances warrant and the civilian guard is not available,I will apprehend desecrators and call the Corporal of the Guard.
(3) In inclement weather I understand that I may use the sentry boxes. When in the sentry box, I will stand at Parade Rest.

Orders to kill are expected to be evaluated by the person receiving the order. The order must be judged to come from a competant authority to be followed. And it must relate to military duty to accomplish a military mission. No soldier is expected to just "blindly" follow orders. Those that do and commit a crime will be punished to the fullest extent of the Uniformed Code of Military Conduct.

SkinWalker
SSG, US Army ret. :p