A Question of Ethics In War

[Racerbvd]

With one shot, take out current & future terrorist!!!

[Rikao4]

Crazy talk,
you give them what they want,
offer more, give them a plane,
scold the hostages for not being nice to the freedom fighters.
That's what I would do ..

Obama

[tabs]

POP has it...your ultimate responsibility is to your own troops. They have familys back home who love them no less than the children in the hospital. Your nation is not responsible for the safety of citizens from the nation you are at war with. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. The job of your armed forces are to defeat the enemy any way that they can. Timing also has nothing to do with, hoping that you can mimimize collateral damage. Anytime you let your foot off an enemies throat is giving him another chance to take a shot at you. Wars are lost on such thinking.

On of the unhearlded theaters of the war in the Pacific during WW2 was the US subramarine campaign against Japan. Everybody knows about McArthur going through the Central Pacific while the Navy conducted an island hopping campaign, but few know that the US Navy conducted UNRESTRICTED subramarine warfare against Japans merchant fleet. THe USN was so successfull that by the end of the war there was NOTHING left to sink. The Nurnberg War Crimes Trials wanted to proescute German Admiral Doenitz for Germanys unrestricted subramarine war against the Allys, however US Admiral Chester Nimitz told them the US did the same thing to Japan. The charges were dropped.

Wars are a dirty business, things happen that are not controlable in the heat of action. To second guess a soldier or commander after the fact is delusional and usually is a political ploy. Wars are fought on the primal level and have nothing to do with rationality or logic. That is the fallacy that Liberal apologists just don't fathom.


"Since that isn't an option in the hypothetical question (it's an either-or - either their people die or your people die), I say you let their people die. Your ultimate loyalty/responsibility is to YOUR people."

[berettafan]

wouldn't allow a child of any nationality to trade his/her life for mine OR anyone under my direction.

i suppose this would teach the bad guys to continue this tactic but this is why i'm not in the military (well that and i'm kinda overweight and don't run very well).

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by tabs

That is the fallacy that Liberal apologists just don't fathom.

None of the so called "Liberals" on this board played into that, not in this thread.

Maybe you have an unfounded fear Tabs.

Have you hugged a Liberal today?

[tabs]

Originally Posted by kach22i

None of the so called "Liberals" on this board played into that, not in this thread.

Maybe you have an unfounded fear Tabs.

Have you hugged a Liberal today?

Ohhh yesss Kachi, that is why some have spoken about proportionality and timing and you about some other targets that would accomplish the same thing...War is a black and white business. Either you pull the trigger on him or he is going to pull the trigger on you. Very simple principle with NO MODIFERS.

The principle of war is to destroy the enemies will to resist, to impose your own will upon the enemy for your own ends.

[MRM]

Tabs' discussion of unrestricted warfare against the Japanese sub fleet notwithstanding, i'll share an anecdote from D-Day that I find telling. I believe it comes from the book The Longest Day. The Americans landed on the beach, fought their way on shore, and soon found themselves fighting on the farms of Normandy. One group was coming under serious fire (which of them wasn't) and were rushing to set up some artillery to take the heat off. The best place to set up was a farmer's yard. A soldier was dispatched to the famer's house to ask permission to set up. The farmer, used to years of Nazi occupation, laughed bitterly and gave permission to set up. As the US soldier turned to go the farmer asked sarcastically what the Americans would have done if he said no. The GI turned back to him in suprise and said "We'd go somewhere else, of course." That's the military of the country I grew up thinking I belonged to.

As for the issue of unrestricted warfare on the Japanese merchant ships. There was a difference between those attacks and the German equivilent that makes all the difference in the rules of war. The Japanese were fighting a war of aggression and the merchant fleet was working in direct support of that war. As such, all Japanese merchant vessels were legitimate targets of war. The Allied merchant fleet was not in the same position. Not only was the Allied involvement in WWII not in support of a war of aggression and not all merchant shipping was done in support of the war effort. Therefore, not all Allied shipping were legitimate targets of war. In other words, the campaign against Japan's merchant fleet saved Japanese, as well as American lives.

As a side note, the US sub campaign was so effective that it starved Japan of crucial materials and stopped reinforcements to the point that it shortened the war, saving untold lives. The question of whether the US would have had to invade Japan or just wait until it was starved into submission is still debated, but the effectiveness of the attacks on merchant shipping set the stage for Japan's surrender after the atom bombs were dropped.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MRM

As for the issue of unrestricted warfare on the Japanese merchant ships. There was a difference between those attacks and the German equivilent that makes all the difference in the rules of war. The Japanese were fighting a war of aggression and the merchant fleet was working in direct support of that war. As such, all Japanese merchant vessels were legitimate targets of war. The Allied merchant fleet was not in the same position. Not only was the Allied involvement in WWII not in support of a war of aggression and not all merchant shipping was done in support of the war effort. Therefore, not all Allied shipping were legitimate targets of war. In other words, the campaign against Japan's merchant fleet saved Japanese, as well as American lives.

This is a textbook example of history as written by the victors.

[MRM]

Perhaps, but neutral interpreters of the law of war have come to the same conclusion. It is a crime against humanity, recognized by all nations, to wage a war of aggression. Now what constitutes a war of aggression is sometimes open to debate, but WWII certainly was one. The rule of proportionality applies in responding to a war of aggression. And the entire US civilian economy was not devoted to the war effort as an arm of the government as was the Japanese economy. The least injurious way to defeat the Japanese war of aggression was through the use of unrestricted submarine warfare. Hence, such warfare was ipso facto proportionate. There was a substantive difference between the Axis' version of total war and the Allies'.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by kach22i

None of the so called "Liberals" on this board played into that, not in this thread.

Maybe you have an unfounded fear Tabs.

Have you hugged a Liberal today?

Here's another mind-blowing total surprise for you liberal-bashers: Tabs' question is a horribly sad no-brainer. You take out the command and control center. Perhaps you do it at night, or somehow mitigate collateral losses, but you take out the military installation.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Superman

Here's another mind-blowing total surprise for you liberal-bashers: Tabs' question is a horribly sad no-brainer. You take out the command and control center. Perhaps you do it at night, or somehow mitigate collateral losses, but you take out the military installation.

Now Sup, I didn't say anything but what I think is the only choice, true it would be hard, but looking at the history, what choice is there??

[tabs]

Originally Posted by MRM

Perhaps, but neutral interpreters of the law of war have come to the same conclusion. It is a crime against humanity, recognized by all nations, to wage a war of aggression. Now what constitutes a war of aggression is sometimes open to debate, but WWII certainly was one. The rule of proportionality applies in responding to a war of aggression. And the entire US civilian economy was not devoted to the war effort as an arm of the government as was the Japanese economy. The least injurious way to defeat the Japanese war of aggression was through the use of unrestricted submarine warfare. Hence, such warfare was ipso facto proportionate. There was a substantive difference between the Axis' version of total war and the Allies'.

I suppose thats why Germany was still making Steinway pianos in 1945...

[tabs]

MRM what are we going to do with U? Put a helmet on your head a rifle in your hands and put you in a trench on the front lines. Then lets see you file a legal brrief telling the enemy he has to cease and desist.

[MRM]

Bombs before briefs, Tabs. Do you seriously want someone as tall as me and as blind as me holding a gun anywhere near the front lines? My eyes are so bad that they kept me out of the Army in the early 80s when I tried to join up. They didn't keep me out of a few years of ROTC, but I never put the Army to the test after that. Put me on the front lines and the enemy could use me to sight their artillery on and I'd be too blind to see which way the shells were coming from.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by MRM

Bombs before briefs, Tabs. Do you seriously want someone as tall as me and as blind as me holding a gun anywhere near the front lines? My eyes are so bad that they kept me out of the Army in the early 80s when I tried to join up. They didn't keep me out of a few years of ROTC, but I never put the Army to the test after that. Put me on the front lines and the enemy could use me to sight their artillery on and I'd be too blind to see which way the shells were coming from.

He11 yeah I want you right next to me....to draw the enemy fire away from me...

[tabs]

Well maybe at the other end of the trench might be better...

[MRM]

Negative 12.25 diopters, Tabs. That's a negative twelve and a quarter. Can you say "finger count at 8 feet"? Perfect correction to 20-20 with contacts, but contacts aren't approved for field use. You don't want me with glasses on manning a dangerous weapon with you anywhere within the effective range of said weapon.

[tabs]

Who said we were going to give you any bullets...all we want is for you to just stand there....

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Superman

Here's another mind-blowing total surprise for you liberal-bashers: Tabs' question is a horribly sad no-brainer. You take out the command and control center. Perhaps you do it at night, or somehow mitigate collateral losses, but you take out the military installation.

Well at least we agreed once. This is utter foolishness. You win wars by making it too painful for the other side to continue.

This is the perfect time to pose a question to the entire left wing cabal, you, Kach, Dottore, 70satman, Nostatic, Speeder and all the rest. Why should the South not be entitled for reparations for the crimes committed by WT Sherman and his army when he killed, raped & pillaged his way thru Georgia on his "march to the sea." He faced virtually no military resistance. His stated goal was to "make Georgia howl." Is it because he committed these crimes against evil Southerners, not peace loving muslims or what?

[DARISC]

Kach, Dottore, 70satman, Nostatic, Speeder and all the rest - WTF are you liberal loonies plotting?! You ought to be sooo ashamed of yourselves for having cabal!