Actual video to the wikileaks story

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Evidence? Where was the morality in the fire bombing of Dresden? Not really required to win the war other than to show the Germans we'd kill them all if need be.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked. Why? They weren't really military targets. Other less populated targets could have been bombed just to show the Japanese we had a really big bomb. Instead we chose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It did make the point...we'll kill every god damn one of you if that what it takes. The Japanese, no less fanatic that the terroists we face today, suddenly were ready for peace. Imagine that!
I hold my position, morality has no place in war. Before and after, certainly. During, it's an exercise in futility.
More...

Why are you asking me where was the morality in Dresden or the atomic bombing in Japan? At no point did I say there was any morality in those situations. Nor is it remotely relevant whether I think they were evil or righteous actions, or somewhere in between. You made a claim - if you want people to accept it, then you cannot just make an assertion, you must provide evidence to back it up. Asking me my personal opinions on something does not constitute supporting your claim with evidence.

Besides, we are not discussing whether war sometimes has totally amoral or evil conduct - of course it has. We are discussing whether war has *no* morality at all. The fact that amoral or immoral actions have occurred many times in wars do not disprove the existence of moral actions in wars. All we need to do is cite a single example of any moral conduct in any war, and you have to concede you were wrong. A single army holds POWs without slaughtering them, and you are wrong. A single soldier refrains from shooting a civilian, and you are wrong. A single ambulance is allowed to pick up wounded without being destroyed, and you are wrong.

It's also important to distinguish between what is, and what ought to be. Slavery used to be legal. It shouldn't be, and in most places no longer is. War used to be more immoral than it is now, but it shouldn't be any more immoral than necessary to win it. There should be moral constraints, where we can afford to employ them without risking our survival. It is of no relevance to moral discussion whether war in the past has been free of morality, and more than it is relevant to good law-making that mankind once lived without laws.

If for some reason you still persist in your belief, consider this - the Iraq insurgency could have been suppressed simply by destroying the entire country with nuclear strikes, for example. Bin Laden could be killed by nuking everywhere from Morocco through to N Korea. Why shouldn't the USA do that? It wasn't because it wouldn't work, after all - it would end the entire "war on terror" overnight. What other possible reason could there be not to do it, if war is indeed amoral as you claim?
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Yes! Although "Justifiable" is a relative term, as is resolve. One man's justification is another mans unprovoked attacked. One man's resolve is another man's fanaticism. All depends on whose side your on.
More...

No it doesn't. The way you resolve that apparent subjectivity is to simply employ the golden rule, and imagine how you would feel and behave if your situation were reversed with that of your opponent.

E.g. if you were an Iraqi, but otherwise similar to how you are as a person now, how would you feel about the US conduct in Iraq? How would you want occupying US soldiers to behave? If an Iraqi had been born and brought up in the USA, how would they feel about Iraqi behaviour, what would they consider legitimate resistance fighting, vs illegitimate terrorism?

Of course, that won't be a flawless method. But it will reveal some common ground of acceptable behaviour on both sides, that is not hopelessly biased by the self-interest of each party. Some universal standards will emerge, because the core of basic morality is more or less universal. All it takes to avoid amoral and inhumane pursuit of self-interest is a bit of empathy and imagination, along with the wherewithal to realize that this is a basic responsibility of any civilized human being.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

And this has what to do with the discussion here? We're having a discussion about what actually happens in war and how one should be fought if one intends to win. There are differences of opinion, but there isn't anyone here championing war. Take your political bias elsewhere.
More...

Having a hard day with the misses and you're feeling the need to be someones boss. Grow up, you have no control or say in what others post or say or do. Don't like it, tough dodo, captnobnoxious .
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Why are you asking me where was the morality in Dresden or the atomic bombing in Japan? At no point did I say there was any morality in those situations. Nor is it remotely relevant whether I think they were evil or righteous actions, or somewhere in between. You made a claim - if you want people to accept it, then you cannot just make an assertion, you must provide evidence to back it up. Asking me my personal opinions on something does not constitute supporting your claim with evidence.

Besides, we are not discussing whether war sometimes has totally amoral or evil conduct - of course it has. We are discussing whether war has *no* morality at all. The fact that amoral or immoral actions have occurred many times in wars do not disprove the existence of moral actions in wars. All we need to do is cite a single example of any moral conduct in any war, and you have to concede you were wrong. A single army holds POWs without slaughtering them, and you are wrong. A single soldier refrains from shooting a civilian, and you are wrong. A single ambulance is allowed to pick up wounded without being destroyed, and you are wrong.

It's also important to distinguish between what is, and what ought to be. Slavery used to be legal. It shouldn't be, and in most places no longer is. War used to be more immoral than it is now, but it shouldn't be any more immoral than necessary to win it. There should be moral constraints, where we can afford to employ them without risking our survival. It is of no relevance to moral discussion whether war in the past has been free of morality, and more than it is relevant to good law-making that mankind once lived without laws.

If for some reason you still persist in your belief, consider this - the Iraq insurgency could have been suppressed simply by destroying the entire country with nuclear strikes, for example. Bin Laden could be killed by nuking everywhere from Morocco through to N Korea. Why shouldn't the USA do that? It wasn't because it wouldn't work, after all - it would end the entire "war on terror" overnight. What other possible reason could there be not to do it, if war is indeed amoral as you claim?
More...

You're talking about breaking it down to an individual level and I'm talking about war itself, the big picture. War is immoral! It is killing of human beings on a grand scale for no other reason than one side can't get aong with the other. That's immoral! War is sending others to do your dirty work because you're not smart enough, or care enough to work out a peaceful soultion, and then passing judgement on those you've sent to do your killing. That's immoral! Yes, individuals can act in a moral way during the war, but war itself is amoral, and victory will go to those that can stomach the immorality of it all longer than the other guy.

One more thing. All I'm really trying to say is once it's decided to send in the troops, we should not expect those troops to play nice. At the grunt level it's about killing the other guy before he kills you. One may walk in with high minded idealogy, but it doesn't take long to figure out it's just about survival.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Having a hard day with the misses and you're feeling the need to be someones boss. Grow up, you have no control or say in what others post or say or do. Don't like it, tough dodo, captnobnoxious .
More...

No, I took your post as saying I was somehow being a champion of war, and some sort of chickenhawk implying I have no experience with what I'm talking about. That is not the case. No way in hell do I champion war, and I do have the experience. If that was not your intent, then I apologize. If it was, fuck you.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

No, I took your post as saying I was somehow being a champion of war, and some sort of chickenhawk implying I have no experience with what I'm talking about. That is not the case. No way in hell do I champion war, and I do have the experience. If that was not your intent, then I apologize. If it was, fuck you.
More...

No I wasn't directing it at you personally at all unless you are Dick Cheney. Thanks for the apology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top