Yes, I was thinking perhaps a GD on that subject might be in order, and also prevent a further hijack.
What’s the question?
With all respect, Scylla, I find this response a bit disappointing. I think Obfus has some valid points that could be addressed.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by andros *
**
With all respect, Scylla, I find this response a bit disappointing. I think Obfus has some valid points that could be addressed. **
[/QUOTE]
Very well. I’ll try to hit the highpoints.
Assuming we get forced into such a position that we are forced into war, it behooves us to do everything possible to win it with the minimum casualties to our armed forces. If we don’t feel strongly enough about it in the first place to hold that attitude, it’s not worth a war IMO.
We’ve had a historical situation where we attempted to fight a “civilized” limited war. We handcuffed our armed forces, while the other side had no such compunctions, and a lot of our guys died for no good reason. The country was still decimated, it was still unbeleivably brutal and we lost. You say a one on one fight is a bad analogy, but journalistic integrity is a worse one. You win a war by beating the other guy into submission. You can’t do that nicely, and if you try, you get beat into submission.
Shanghai.
I disagree. I think it’s a good analogy and I think your answer serves my point well.
A bar fight is stupid. There’s no good reason to have one. If it’s at all possible to walk away, you do so. However, if it becomes impossible to avoid the fight, and you’re attacked, the smart thing to do would be to shoot your attacker. Isn’t that why one carries a gun in the first place? As a weapon of last resort. I think any real physical fight is an option of last resort, so absolutely. If I was unavoidably attacked in a bar, I’d use whatever weapon possible including a gun if I was carrying one.
This isn’t the olympic games you know. People who fight barfights are idiots. There’s no reason to participate, and there’s no reason that if you’re forced to you should follow some idiots rules, especially since you don’t know if they have a knife or a gun, either.
First question, yes. Second question, no. I’d advise taking your wife and leaving rather than fighting. Be polite, walk out and defuse the situation. Call the police, get the bouncer to help you. What about a grope is worth fighting for? If you can’t escape, and there’s a rape occuring than a gun would be a nice thing to have wouldn’t it. If you posess overwhelming power, you need to exercise incredible restraint. But there’s no point in carrying a gun if you’re unwilling to use it when the circumstances call for it. In fact, that’s worse than not having it in the first place. You might do something stupid like try to bluff, or have it used against you. My grandfather’s the retired Chief of Narcotics for NY. My father taught riflery to the Marines, and served two tours in Vietnam. They taught me how to use rifles and pistols. One rule has no exception. A handgun in a non cop’s hands should stay holstered unitl immediately before you point it at another person and pull the trigger. You don’t bluff, you don’t play games, and you don’t use it to try to scare somebody else off. If the situation doesn’t merit shooting somebody immediately don’t draw the gun.
Similarly if we don’t mean to win this war, wuickly, efficiently, and effectively as possible, we shouldn’t fight it.
How does being willing or paid to place your life at risk devalue that life? If I have $10.00 in my pocket, and I’m gambling another $10.00, is the money that I’m gambling worth less than what’s in my pocket?
Being willing to place your life at risk to help or defend another adds more value to that life, if anything, IMO.
Fair enough. State your argument for this.
[quote]
If we had just
walked away when Germany surrendered, no real threat was posed to the United States by Japan.
[quote]
Really? What would have prevented them from marshalling their resources and attacking again 5-10-15-20 years later?
It sure sounded like it. Which side of the fence are you on, then. Did we need to force to Japan to surrender, or not? If we did, can you make the case that less lives would have been lost through a land invasion? How else could we have gotten them to surrender other than what we did, or land invasion.
You’ll recall Germany lost WWI, stayed intact, but was blanketed under heavy reparations. That didn’t stop them from coming back and fighting again. You would let Japan, become another Germany?
I maintain that if you aren’t planning on defeating your enemy, why are you bothering to fight? Fun?
I don’t think you count on your enemy being stupid enough to let you go at the last minute if you’re losing a lengthy war.
Infrastructure is a military target. Japan had a high degree of nationalism. In a way, each and every Japanese was a part of the war machine of WWII, just as every German, and English person, and even most Americans were, hence the terms, “war-footing, war-economy.”
I think so. You’re second guessing some of the best minds of the time. They were there, and they were informed.
The Navy had basically been destroyed. We had to capture islands not by bombing them, because the Japanese were dug in and hidden. We had to fight them man to man, and they mostly died to a man. They didn’t surrender. They fought to the death.
It was reasoned that the only way we could get them to surrender was to convince them that they would all die meaninglessly without the opportunity to fight if they did not.
We only had two nukes at the time. We used them both with the strong suggestion that we had an endless supply and we would totally destroy their country if they did not surrender.
It was a huge gamble, and it paid off. We may have very well had to destroy the entire country and most everyone in it at immense cost to both Japanese and American lives if that gamble hadn’t convinced them to capitulate.
Make no mistake, a lot of lives were saved because of those two bombs.
If that civilian is aiding the enemy, that civilian is also the enemy.
Do you think that enemy soldiers are stupid enough to just give up cover and expose themselves so we can politely shoot them?
“Oh wait Mr. American soldier. I’m near some civilians. Here, let me move to another location where you can shoot me safely.” Yeah right.
American soldiers are still American citizens. The first duty of our government is to protect American citizens. But, I agree that we don’t want to kill civilian foreign nationals if we can help it. Don’t recall saying otherwise.
No. That is not their job. At all, any more than it is the job of a fireman to be set on fire and burn. Shooting and being shot at, are often consequences of a soldiers mission (which by the way is defend his/her country’s interests, protect it, and defeat those that jeopardize either.)
This is getting stupid andros. Need I really bother with this? Well, might as well tackle them all.
As a rule (with a few notable exceptions,) we do not purposefully kill our own soldiers. We have executed some who commit crimes, and we have fought actions knowing that we would take casualties. “We” don’t kill our soldiers, and when they die protecting us, it’s not because we wanted or intended them to. The purpose of war is not to take casualties.
I worded that statement very carefully. Tactical value is not a judgement call, and while you can argue that a $5 bill is worth more than $10, it just makes you look stupid.
Civilians have been sacrificed over troops on many occasions based on tactical value. Areas have been left undefended to move soldiers to where they are needed, and in WWII civilians were left in harms way by both the US and England so as not to sacrifice the tactical advantages that had been created. You’ll aslo recall that enigma was not used to protect civillians as the “tactical” advantage was to great to give up. A human shield is an effective one. When we are speaking “tactically,” it is by definition not a value judgement.
If your whole point is that tactical value is a judgement call, then you’re in deep shit. Your whole point is bullshit.
If on the other hand, what you meant to say that tactical value is not the only consideration, that it must be weighed against other considerations, than we I would agree.
Still, you are wrong to say that a tactic is invalid, by itself. A tactic is simply a solution to a problem, and it needs to be considered within it’s circumstances before you can pass judgement on whether it is valid or not.
[quote]
Most wars start out “civilized” but I will agree that unless they are short, they will quickly degenerate. Does that make them any less
wrong?
[quote]
That’s not true. Feudalism and chivalry produced long wars with agreed upon rules beforehand that didn’t degenerate. The same held true in Feudal Japan. War has often been limited and stylized in the past.
You’re second sentence is actually my point, and what I’ve been arguing. How a war is fought doesn’t determine whether it’s being fought for a good reason.
Who’s proposing My Lai?
[quote]
(concerning Sherman’s march to the sea and total warfare)And he (Sherman) was wrong to do so.
Well thanks Chief! I didn’t know that! Wow, what logic what reasoning! And here I thought that you were supposed to back up assertions with reasons, that that was how you actually make an argument, but you’ve shown me that all I have to do is say it! Great! Let me try!
You are completely wrong.
Hey look I just won the debate, and it was so easy! I’ll be sure and use that trick all the time.
Sheesh. And you complain about Zenster’s arguments?
Tend your garden first. Zenster may be making some bad arguments, but at least he’s making them. You’re not even bothering.
If you’re assertion is that Sherman’s action was wrong, then how about telling us why?
Well it’s great that we have your firm moral convictions and vast knowledge of military theory and history to set that straight. Guerrilla warfare is a part of total warfare. So is targetting civilians. I’m not loose in my terminology at all. Take your confusion as a clue that you don’t know what you are talking about.
The Vietcong would destroy entire villages that had received aid, food, or medical assistance from American forces, and they did so for extremely sound effective reasons within the context of the “total war” that they were practicing.
Of course. He wants us to do this, to overreact. It will solidify anti-US sentiment.
I disagree strongly with Zenster’s position in this. The purpose of war is not to inflict casualties. It’s to defeat your enemy. There are scenarios though where we might have to kill 10 or even 90% of a population to accomplish our objective, though. Only if we’re very very stupid will it come to that. I don’t think we are.
Really? I find this incredibly fucking stupid. A policeman is worth less than a robber? I mean the policeman isn’t a civilian, and the robber is, right?
I guess firemen aren’t worth very much either.
And here, I thought my father had worth, but as it turns out he’s been devalued by his military career.
I’ll certainly not agree to disagree. It’s ignorant and stupid statements like that that made me throw up my hands in disgust and say “why bother.”
I find the very idea that you would dare to assert that a human being loses value because he fights for his country and risks his life as reprehensible and contemptible, and almost cosmically stupid.
My father’s life has added value because though it was precious to him, he was willing to risk it in the service of his country when it called him.
A soldier’s life certainly has more value than a coward’s who accepts the benefits of society, but runs to Canada when called to service.
Though we’re not a conscription army any more, our soldiers certainly value their lives, and it is inconcievable to me that you would think they’re not worth as much as the people who they are protecting, who’s freedom they often buy by sacrificing their lives.
What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to think.
A soldier’s life has just as much and arguably more human value (because of their willingness to sacrifice it,) than a civilians.
You know what? I’m not going to bother with the rest.
If you’d like one of the remaining points addressed, feel free to bring it to my attention and I’d be happy to address it.
If that’s your position, then we are just going to have to go our separate ways.
No, that isn’t why I carry a gun. I don’t carry a gun, because even though I can think of many situations in which I may need to fight, there are very few I would consider it necessary to kill for (and those are so unlikely I am not going to worry about it).
I haven’t been in a fight since the fifth grade, but I have had people get violent with me. Since I had now idea how it might have gone, I guess I should have just shot them.
**
Then we are defining value different. If I am willing to place something at risk before something else, then I am valuing it less. It doesn’t diminish my respect for soldiers, but I am going to put them at risk before I put civilians at risk. And I am going to put soldiers at risk before I put enemy civilians in unnecessary risk. I’m willing to admit the gray in that statement, but you never target civilians. If the whole objective of a mission or task is to kill civilians, then it is an unacceptable task or mission.
Absolutely, and they set a terrible precedent. In my opinion, an unacceptable precedent.
**
Gee, I’ve already given you the reason why he was wrong, I was assuming your ability to carry a train of thought from one sentence the next. Won’t happen again.
It is wrong to target civilians. You can give me examples of a hundred military campaigns in which civilians were successfully targeted. You can give me six dozen dissertations detailing how the net loss of life was less.
This does not make it right. If World War II could have been brought to a swift, bloodless conclusion by raping every twelve-year-old in Germany, it still would have been wrong. Success does not necessarily justify the means.
No, the robber is the enemy. How many cops are allowed to shoot civilians just to get the robber? Even if the robber is hiding among civilians?
If value is determined based on whose lives are expendible first, then yes, your father’s value as a human being was devalued.
What makes that commitment great is that he willingly devalued it.
I’m confused by the fireman comment, though. Who are the firemen shooting to save their own lives?
No, what makes you throw up your hands is your inability to marshall any understanding that people can reasonably come to different conclusions than you without being an idiot.
Huh? What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I’m not sure if you are flying off on a tangent about sixties protesters or questioning my willingness to serve our country.
If the latter, I encourage you to know of what you speak before pursuing that line any farther.
**
I respect soldiers more than just about anything, but I value them (in the sense that I am more willing to see them die than civilians) less.
Scylla, are you of the opinion that all people who object to war are cowards?
I appreciate your attempt to defend Zenster, as I don’t think he’s such a bad guy. But I think he went overboard with some of his comments and I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that. It is apparent from his threads, including those not concerning Afghanistan, that he’s a rather quick-tempered and passionate person. I’m sure that he has himself reconsidered many of his more reactionary statements regarding the current issue.
obfusciatrist:
Actually I’m quite certain I know my own mind on this, and certainly I know my feelings better than you.
If you have reasons for your opinions, it’s news to me. You haven’t bothered to share them. I’ve answered your objection about targetting civilians by stating:
-
Civilians are often part of the infrastructure of war
-
That doing so, can and has saved lives.
Your response is simply that “it’s still wrong.” Again, big whoop. You need to back it up.
You seem to agree that nuking Japan saved many lives, both American and Japanese, but it was still wrong. So far you haven’t committed on whether or not we needed to defeat Japan and force a surrender, doubtless because you don’t want to get pinned down to the point where you might actually have to defend one of your statements. I’ve made an argument about why it was necessary, which you’ve seen fit to totally ignore.
I find the idea that our servicemen are devalued and expendable cannon fodder to be insupportable, and idiotic.
I’ve also made using a gambling analogy about how something at risk still has the same value as something not at risk. You continue to ignore that reasonable point and simply assert that risking something somehow devalues it. You have not bothered to back up this idiotic assertion, you just keeping repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.
I would agree that reasonable people can have differing opinions based on reason in some circumstances, but before you can use that argument in your defense you actually have to demonstrate that your opinions are founded on reason.
pennylane:
No.
obfusciatrist:
Maybe it would be useful if you could explain why an enemy civilian has more “value” then a friendly civilian.
and:
If you seem to define value by being put at risk then during WWII when the Chinese army purposefully herded refugees into Shanghai and used them as a human shield to buffer themselves and protect themselves from the Japanese Army, they were purposefully put at risk. Therefore, according to your logic this act some lowered the value of their lives, correct.
Seeing as they’d been placed at risk and devalued was it OK for Japan to bombard them?
How about the civilians Saddam Hussein herded into military installations to protect them from bombing? They were purposefully put at risk. I guess they lost their value too.
Oh, and Sherman didn’t target civilians, at all in his March to the sea. He was pretty specific about that as he thought those civilians had value in more than one fashion. He did however burn their homes and cities and destroy their farms and livestock, so that their infrastructure could no longer support the Confederate cause, and the ensuing refugees had both human value, and military value, the latter because those refugees would represent a drain on Confederate resources which would have to support them.
Those refugees were valuable to the Union.
Those civilian centers and what they produced had real military value.
You seem to think that war and fighting is some kind of game like Chess, confined to certain pieces on the board, and anything else is unacceptable.
The reality is that war is a battle between societies and the societies themselves are participants to a certain degree. What is a military target and what is a civilian is not so easy to define.
Scylla, isn’t there a difference between purposefully putting yourself at risk and being purposefully put at risk by someone else?
I would think it would depend on the circumstances. Give me an example.
How about when the Chinese army purposefully herded refugees into Shanghai and used them as a human shield to buffer themselves and protect themselves from the Japanese Army? How about the civilians Saddam Hussein herded into military installations to protect them from bombing?
Well, both the Chinese army, and the Iraqi army were conscript armies. They didn’t have a choice either. They were conscripted civilians. In order to answer your question we need a case of somebody purposefully putting themselves at risk. Since the Irai and Chinese armed forces had no more choice than the civilians that doesn’t really qualify as someone purposefully putting themselves at risk, does it?
No, you’re right, the members of a conscripted army don’t have much choice (apart from fleeing to neutral territory like cowards). But I assumed that obfusciatrist was referring to non-conscripted armies such as the U.S. army, in which the members voluntarily put themselves at risk (albeit for an admirable cause).
Pennylane:
I don’t think he’s thinking deeply enough about it to consider such implications.
But, to try to answer your question as honestly as I can, I think that somebody who deliberately places themselves in harm’s way be it to fight a fire, stop a robbery, or defend a country, has at least as much as value as one who stays behind, and maybe even more if you think that it demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice what is most precious to them in the service of others.
Scylla, first of all, thanks for answering my questions so patiently. Your analogy of the fireman was quite thought-provoking. I think one can safely say that firemen risk their lives to save the lives of civilians (by which I mean non-firemen). Does this mean that they value their lives less than the lives of civilians? In a way, I think it does. That doesn’t mean that we should value their lives less than the lives of civilians. In fact, if one insists on placing different degrees of value on human lives, their lives might even be worth more, as they save so many other people’s lives. But in a way, a fireman’s life is more expendable than a civilian’s life in that the fireman has chosen an occupation which involves risking his life to save the civilian’s life, whereas the civilian should not be expected to risk his life to save the fireman’s life. The civilian has chosen to contribute to society in other, certainly more cowardly, ways than by rushing into fires to save people. And if we are allowed to make that choice, then that choice should also be respected.
Scylla, Obsfu. (I can’t spell your name and the thread is too long for me to see it, my apologies), I’ve created a new thread over in GD to discuss the ethics of war. I found the discussion here very interesting and not at all what I expected to see in this thread (mind you, I didn’t know what to expect when I saw Zenster’s name on this, which is why I opened it). I would like to invite you all over to continue this discussion a bit more seperatly from the current thrust of this thread. In other words, a chance to develop your own ideas and thoughts on this subject matter without having to deduce or rationaize from someone else’s debates.
InkBlot
Scylla, Obsfu. (I can’t spell your name and the thread is too long for me to see it, my apologies), I’ve created a new thread over in GD to discuss the ethics of war. I found the discussion here very interesting and not at all what I expected to see in this thread (mind you, I didn’t know what to expect when I saw Zenster’s name on this, which is why I opened it). I would like to invite you all over to continue this discussion a bit more seperatly from the current thrust of this thread. In other words, a chance to develop your own ideas and thoughts on this subject matter without having to deduce or rationaize from someone else’s debates.
InkBlot
Pennylane:
My opinion is that it really isn’t a matter of value except for the willingness to sacrifice.
I think a human life is a human life whether it’s a soldier, a fireman, and accountant, or a Dr. I think those lives are equally precious, and that in most if not all cases they are precious indeed to the person who posesses them.
I think the concept that fills the gap is the one of duty.
I don’t think expendability has anything to do with it.
Duty and ability select the fireman or the soldier for his role, not value.