# Dealing With Human Shields in War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392 "2003-02-11T18:12:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/101 "2003-02-13T17:19:29Z")
> [@](#): > > _IzzyR_In an emergency, would you save your family ahead of others? Should you? I would make a special, selfish example for my wife and child, because I am human. > [@](#): > > You are not deficient for not wanting your countrymen to kill innocent people. You are deficient for not caring any more about your countrymen than about others. I think I would phrase this differently. I would say that I care about all people _just as much_ as I care about my countrymen. How is that immoral or deficient? > [@](#): > > No, that’s NOT the rub of the matter. I specifically said: “Although you may disagree with their actions in this particular case, you would (presumably) agree that the US is better off because we happen to be relatively secure as a nation.” Better off and more secure do equal moral correctness. **Izzy** , I’d just like to thank you for actually engaging me in this debate and specifically arguing points with me rather than just posting drive by insults like some others have done in this thread. I know I’ve said some unpopular things in this thread, especially the “thousand American soldiers” remark, but you and **nogginhead** have forced me to rethink and back off of that kind of hyperbole. I hope that, if I retract that single remark, then my comments in this thread at least don’t seem any _more_ objectionable than any other wild-eyed, liberal, anti-war hippie. I respect you for staying reasonable when I was not. Having said all that, I’m interested in your answer to my question about protecting an innocent child from an _unjust_ assault from your countrymen. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/102 "2003-02-13T17:55:22Z")
Yesterday I was going to post to this train wreck. Naah. Since then, I agree more with **DtC** than I did yesterday. Look, nobody should die. Saddam’s actions kill innocent Iraqi children. To do a real utilitarian fealitic calculus we should take that into account. To stay the military hand can _cost_ innocent lives. Utilitarianism is a bitch that way. If you want to maximize the number of living Iraqi children, don’t pretend that there are not other factors. What about Saddam’s willingness to sacrifice the just-grown-up children in military adventurism or missile attacks - Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Israel, the NFZs? He only cooperates with the international community when the US puts an invasion force near his borders. What I was going to say yesterday, you really cannot calculate the worth of human life. Many of our US troops are ‘innocent’ in the sense that they have never hurt anyone. They don’t decide to go to war. I’d bet most of them wish the war to be a mass surrender with as few casualties as possible. Iraqi children are innocent also. I would prefer to leave the relative worthiness to live to God. > [@](#): > > **DtC** I think it’s absurd to argue that we have to attack the Iraqi people in order to save them from Saddam. This I could debate, and have on various threads. There is another one now that suggests this is a major motivation for US action. Maybe I’ll go post in that one also. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/103 "2003-02-13T18:13:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > > > [@](#): > > > > IzzyR > > In an emergency, would you save your family ahead of others? Should you? > > I would make a special, selfish example for my wife and child, because I am human. To confirm, you would do it, but would feel that you had done something morally wrong? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You are not deficient for not wanting your countrymen to kill innocent people. You are deficient for not caring any more about your countrymen than about others. > > I think I would phrase this differently. I would say that I care about all people just as much as I care about my countrymen. How is that immoral or deficient? Because you have failed to recognize the bond that you have with your countrymen. Particularly if you benefit from those bonds by partaking of the efforts that others put forth based on them. I guess if you renounced all benefit from the society that you are a part of, and went off to live by yourself in a cave, you owe nothing to anyone and can treat everyone as equals. Until then, not. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No, that’s NOT the rub of the matter. I specifically said: “Although you may disagree with their actions in this particular case, you would (presumably) agree that the US is better off because we happen to be relatively secure as a nation.” > > Better off and more secure do equal moral correctness. What I’m trying to say is that these soldiers have signed up to defend you in the event of some hostile power engaging us. You benefit from this deterrent effect, even if you disagree with the specific actions in Iraq. > [@](#): > > I’d just like to thank you for actually engaging me in this debate and specifically arguing points with me rather than just posting drive by insults like some others have done in this thread. I know I’ve said some unpopular things in this thread, especially the “thousand American soldiers” remark, but you and nogginhead have forced me to rethink and back off of that kind of hyperbole. I hope that, if I retract that single remark, then my comments in this thread at least don’t seem any more objectionable than any other wild-eyed, liberal, anti-war hippie. Well, I’m just a sweetie. (Ask anyone.) But seriously, I do want to note that one might separate attitudes about the war from attitudes about the soldiers. I was vehemently opposed to the bombing campaign in Serbia (ambiguous moral issue, no compelling self interest, expanded vision of “military target” - but that’s another issue). But though I felt that Clinton and Blair et al were evil men, I wished only the best on the poor guys out there doing the fighting. > [@](#): > > Having said all that, I’m interested in your answer to my question about protecting an innocent child from an unjust assault from your countrymen. Well it’s a good question. Because if you remove the military aspect of it you are right. Suppose a band of American mass murderers went down to Bolivia and began randomly killing innocent Bolivians for the fun of it. I would certainly want to kill them to save the innocent civilians, and in fact, as a supporter of the death penalty, I would want to kill them even if the innocent civilians were beyond saving. I would say that the difference here is that the military has to follow a chain of command, and you can’t have each soldier setting his own foreign policy. Unless the command is egregiously wrong by widely recognized standards, I would say a soldier is obligated to follow orders in a military campaign. I think you can hold the commanders responsible for setting immoral policies, but to expect individual soldiers to dissent in a somewhat ambiguous moral issue is not justifiable. In this case, you can argue as to whether the war is justified or not, or whether the policies with regards to risk to civilians are wrong or not, but I don’t think they are enough out of line with accepted and historical military standards to make an individual soldier obligated to conscientiously object. So these guys stay good guys, and I stay loyal to them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/104 "2003-02-13T19:01:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _IzzyR_ > To confirm, you would do it, but would feel that you had done something morally wrong? I don’t know. It’s a question I’ve thought about a lot. I’m not sure i really have an answer to it. I’m still pondering it. > [@](#): > > Because you have failed to recognize the bond that you have with your countrymen. Particularly if you benefit from those bonds by partaking of the efforts that others put forth based on them. I guess if you renounced all benefit from the society that you are a part of, and went off to live by yourself in a cave, you owe nothing to anyone and can treat everyone as equals. Until then, not. Let me be clear about something, here. I do not place any blame or culpability on the soldiers who are over there. I place the blame solely on the president and his cronies. If American soldiers are killed, I will consider them to be victims of their president. I don’t think American troops _deserve_ to die. I think that military casualties are a tragedy. I think that civilian casualties are a worse tragedy. and, FTR, I used to _be_ in the military (Navy). > [@](#): > > **But seriously, I do want to note that one might separate attitudes about the war from attitudes about the soldiers.** I was vehemently opposed to the bombing campaign in Serbia (ambiguous moral issue, no compelling self interest, expanded vision of “military target” - but that’s another issue). But though I felt that Clinton and Blair et al were evil men, **I wished only the best on the poor guys out there doing the fighting.** Agreed (with the parts that are bolded). > [@](#): > > I would say that the difference here is that the military has to follow a chain of command, and you can’t have each soldier setting his own foreign policy. Unless the command is egregiously wrong by widely recognized standards, I would say a soldier is obligated to follow orders in a military campaign. I think you can hold the commanders responsible for setting immoral policies, but to expect individual soldiers to dissent in a somewhat ambiguous moral issue is not justifiable. In this case, you can argue as to whether the war is justified or not, or whether the policies with regards to risk to civilians are wrong or not, but I don’t think they are enough out of line with accepted and historical military standards to make an individual soldier obligated to conscientiously object. So these guys stay good guys, and I stay loyal to them. Agreed again. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/105 "2003-02-13T19:22:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I don’t know. It’s a question I’ve thought about a lot. I’m not sure i really have an answer to it. I’m still pondering it. > \*\* Let’s just all agree that it would make our consciences uneasy to have to choose who lives and who dies. I’d save my family, of course. And I would feel I’d made the right decision. But I’d regret not being able to save other people too. I’m not sure I’d say I’d done something morally _worng_, but morally ambiguous, no question. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/106 "2003-02-13T19:38:16Z")
**Diogenes the Cynic** - You said that the crew of the Vincennes _ **murdered** _ those passengers. Murder, both morally & legally, means to **deliberately** kill someone. You cannot accidentally commit murder. Something needs to be stated here. War is not obsolete. It is unfortunate that it is not, but ultimately if you believe in the concept of international law then you believe in the concept of going to war because this how you have to enforce them. Laws, by definition, stop at nations borders. And in a war, whether you like it or agree with it or not, enemy civilians are still the enemy. Men, women and children. They may be non-combatants and as such, to a reasonable degree, be kept out of harms way by the military. But their existence does not make going to war immoral and to believe so is just immature and ignorant. The world is a dangerous place. And 9/11 made it a significantly more dangerous place for American civilians- men, women & children. It showed that members of US-hating and terrorist supporting countries are willing & able & desire to, in the case of 9/11, **murder** innocent US civilians for no other reason than because of their religion & nationality. Therefore the Iraqi people- men, women & children, are no longer innocent (because of their nationality). Or rather, the protection of innocent American lives is the highest priority even if it means endangering Iraqi lives. And it is the highest priority not just to the US military but to its citizens as well. Regardless of my previous comment I think its worth risking thousands of Iraqi civilians to keep terrorists from killing you! ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/107 "2003-02-13T19:53:28Z")
[“felicific”](http://www.utilitarianism.com/felicalc.htm) not whatever I called it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/108 "2003-02-13T20:03:58Z")
[quote] _Hail Ants_ Diogenes the Cynic - You said that the crew of the Vincennes murdered those passengers. [quote] No I didn’t, I cited an example of _Bush Sr. showing indifference_ to Iraqi civilian casualties. The website I quoted from characterized the incident of murder, not me. And I specifically told you that I did _not_ consider it murder when you asked for clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Scruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Scruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruff)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/109 "2003-02-13T20:08:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Therefore the Iraqi people- men, women & children, are no longer innocent (because of their nationality). The **Iraqi’s** flew the planes into the World Trade Center? To quote Maxwell Smart (a show I’m sure you thought was a documentary about the CIA), “missed it by that much”. Hint: go find Saudi Arabia on a map. And yeah, I am just being a tad snide. In war, I tend to abide by the old motto, “what happens to the other guy doesn’t matter.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/110 "2003-02-13T20:09:26Z")
Hmm…looking at now, the mods seem to have removed the url and just left the quotes, but originally the whole thing was a hyperlink. The comments under the quotes were from the link, not from me. (It _was_ an anti-war site.) ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/111 "2003-02-13T20:21:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > And in a war, whether you like it or agree with it or not, enemy civilians are still the enemy. Men, women and children. > \*\* This is exactly wrong. If you believe it, you’re saying that the world trade center dead were the enemies of the terrorists, and legitimate targets. And that the villagers at My Lai were valid targets as well. War takes place between states, not individuals. Read the section of the geneva conventions I posted. > [@](#): > > They may be non-combatants and as such, to a reasonable degree, be kept out of harms way by the military. Right. Not enemies. Non-combatants. > [@](#): > > And 9/11 made it a significantly more dangerous place for American civilians- men, women & children. It showed that members of US-hating and terrorist supporting countries are willing & able & desire to, in the case of 9/11, **murder** innocent US civilians for no other reason than because of their religion & nationality. Therefore the Iraqi people- men, women & children, are no longer innocent (because of their nationality). So under this logic, you are guilty of whatever mass murder any US citizen commits anywhere in the world. Actaully, AFAIK, none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi, so under this logic, you are guilty of whatever mass murder any Westerner commits anywhere in the world. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/112 "2003-02-13T21:31:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > and, FTR, I used to _be_ in the military (Navy). Well then I appreciate _your_ contribution. And I’m glad you didn’t get killed in action. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/113 "2003-02-13T22:24:26Z")
> [@](#): > > No I didn’t, I cited an example of Bush Sr. showing indifference to Iraqi civilian casualties You’re right, I apologize for getting that wrong. > [@](#): > > This is exactly wrong. If you believe it, you’re saying that the world trade center dead were the enemies of the terrorists, and legitimate targets From their point of view, yeah, they were exactly that. But 9/11 was not carried out by any one country, but by terrorists who believe America & its people to be evil. So I accept the policy that **any** govt which also believes and practices this attitude of terrorism against the US is a legitamite threat to the lives of American citizens. A threat deserving to be neutralized. And after being emboldened by the amazing success of 9/11, neutralized pre-emptively. And I understand that the rest of the world doesn’t agree. France & Germany have more to lose than gain. They are not (or at least haven’t been) the terrorist’s targets. But it doesn’t matter whether the agree or not. We don’t need their’s or the UN’s assistance to do this and they can’t prevent us from doing it either. After 9/11 I value the security of my country & its citizens above all else. And regardless of what they might say, so does every other country on the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/114 "2003-02-13T22:57:24Z")
> [@](#): > > _Hail Ants_ > So I accept the policy that any govt which also believes and practices this attitude of terrorism against the US is a legitamite threat to the lives of American citizens. It has yet to be shown that Iraq is one of these governments. Also, why are the children responsible for what the government does? ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/115 "2003-02-14T03:19:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*It has yet to be shown that Iraq is one of these governments. Also, why are the children responsible for what the government does? \*\* Forget the children! Why is any Arab responsible for what any Arab government does? Unless there are functioning Arab democracies that are escaping my mind right now? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/116 "2003-02-14T08:47:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Hmm…looking at now, the mods seem to have removed the url and just left the quotes, but originally the whole thing was a hyperlink. The comments under the quotes were from the link, not from me. (It _was_ an anti-war site.) The coding in that post was fairly screwed up. Originally there were some URL tags, but no actual URL (i.e., **[url=]The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.[**/url], which will produce something that [url=]_looks_ like a hyperlink but doesn’t actually go anywhere.) Feel free to try reposting the link with the URL included. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/117 "2003-02-14T13:48:27Z")
Oh…I see, my mistake. Thanks, ME. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/118 "2003-02-20T09:10:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*All human beings are equal. > > \*\* Then the loss of 1000 soldiers is a thousand times worse a tragedy than the loss of 1 child. Why should the age matter, if they are equal? Really, why? You might say “because that child has his/her whole life ahead of him”. Given the million different ways to die on this planet, especially under the regime of a madman, you can’t really say that. The future is always uncertain and all we really have is today. I can’t buy the “but the child is _innocent_” argument, because I cannot look into the souls of the 1000 soldiers. A hefty number of them\* may\* be beautiful souls and capable of greater contributions to the world than that Iraqi child. We can’t know, can we? Some of these soldiers are little more than children themselves. (18 years old) For some, it was the best job they could hope to get. And some of these soldiers signed on before Schrub got into the Oval Office. They may not have forseen this situation. I certainly didn’t. For better or worse, they are hip deep in it now. I admire your passion, but statements like that will NOT help your argument. (The 1000 soldiers/1 innocent child statement, not the quoted statement) I will restate my position. They want to protest by marching on Washington? Cool. They want to boycott this company or that? Cool. They want to chuck rotton fruit at the Commander in Chief? Cool. They want to go to Iraq and be human shields? They are morons and deserve whatever happens to them. It’s not bravery, it’s stupidity. [sub]I apologize if you’ve already backed away from this. I should probably finish the durned thread[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392/119 "2003-02-20T15:51:39Z")
I _have_ backed awy from it, **spooje** , read a little further. Apology accepted, though… 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dealing-with-human-shields-in-war/154392.md?page=5)