Genocide

Great Debates
1

It seems that we’re in a cycle, with topics spinning off from “War” to “Nukes” to “Genocide”, then back to “War” again.

So, what the hell…

clairobscur’s response to Kalt, taken from
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=86837&pagenumber=2

But is genocide morally wrong? If so, why?

In our current situation, the point may be moot–right now, the entire Middle East couldn’t harm the US enough to threaten our existance. So, unless they intend to start lobbing nukes in our direction, they can’t get all of us.

But suppose–just us talking here–that such a nation does exist.

Let’s say that the entire Middle East joins with China, a few former Soviet nations, and the whole of the Indian sub-continent (or whatever–the who doesn’t really matter, only the fact that this hypothetical country exists.)

Let’s further say that this new nation has the technology, the resources, the manpower, and the fervent intent to destroy America and all Americans.

After their first attack took out most of the Eastern Seaboard, would you or would you not do everything in your power to kill every last one of them?

Would you kill their civilian factory workers and farmers, if it meant that their products could not support those who were so intent upon killing you and yours?

Would you kill their housewives and students, if it would keep them from spawning a new generation which would most likely attack anew in 15 or 20 years?

Would you kill their children, if it was the only way to save your own?

-David
The questions are directed to everyone, not to clairobscur, specifically.

2

[ul][list][list]Why don’t we get rid of everyone.
[list][list]:cool:
[/ul][/list]** Just you me and two good looking chicks?**

3

SoulFrost wrote:

Not to the ancient Israelites, apparently:
“So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.”

– Joshua 10:40 (NIV translation)

4

As Tracer has (inadvertently?) pointed out, it doesn’t matter if we believe genocide to be wrong, it matters if they believe it. And, apparently, some of them consider genocide to be A-Okay.

5

A very emphatic no. America is very fortunate in that it has never had to face this situation, but it is probably worth bearing in mind that most other countries have to a greater or lesser extent. Do you really believe that England should have wiped out every last man,woman and child in Germany in response to the blitz? Hell, France had it’s entire country taken, Russia had at least the equivalent of it’s Eastern Seaboard invaded. There’s no way that I could morally hold every individual in a nation responsible for the acts of it’s leaders. I couldn’t even hold all soldiers resposnible. If exterminating every individual in a nation is a justifiable response to a nation invading or assisting in the invasion of your territory then North Korea has the right to exterminate every US citizen doesn’t it? How about Mexico, would you feel they have a moral raeson for killing Us civilians? Certainly the Maoris, Indians etc. have the moral right to exterminate every British citizen.

IMHO the acts of the leaders can never be grounds for the slaughter of soldiers and civilians carrying out what they see as their duty. War is dirty, their are very rarely definite goodies and baddies. If we start justifying killing people for nothing more than supporting a war we become terrorists ourselves. After all isn’t the most likely raesoning of those responsible for this latest tragedy that they are simpy killing citizens of a nation who supported an unjust war? (And no, I don’t want a debate on the morality of this thinking, I’m just pointing out how such an act as the OP proposes appears to the other side.)

Yep, right up until they surrendered. We’ve done it before and if necessary I suppose I’d support doing it again. The difference is in WWII we stopped after they surrendered.We didn’t keep killing the enemy until they were all dead. That is unnecessray and unjustified.

You’re not serious are you? Kill someone, not because they have commited any crime, not even because they might be likely to commit a crime, but because their descendants might one day commit a crime. :eek: :frowning:

This sort of thought is sickening. Beyond that it’s illogical. Based on this wouldn’t we have to kill everyone? Odds are a descendant of every single human being will at some time commit a crime if the human race continues for another 100, 000 years. Where do we stop?

Firstly I’d like to see how the hell in the real world it would ever be necessary to kill someone elses child to save my own. If an eleven yo Transbodnian boy was coming after my son with an AK47 maybe. But that’s not killing all there children, it’s killing those who present a clear danger. Can you please present a scenario where it would ever be necessary to kill all, or even any, random children in an enemy nation to protect our own children. And I don’t mean children as civilian casualties, that’s horrible but it may be necessary, but an example of actually needing to target children to save children.
Spoofe,
While I take your point, shouldn’t ‘we’ be taking the civilised, decent, moral high ground here, not descending to the levels of our enemies?

6

Yes, genocide is very very wrong. Under all circumstances. I think this self-evident, if anything is.