We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chameleon
+
25818
Wed, 17 Mar 04 08:40 PM
"The Great War"
The European powers that became involved in the first world war did so of their own accord, and for pretty foolish reasons. It is always easy to assign blame in retrospect, but if Russia had not declared war on Austria-Hungary for attacking Serbia, nothing might have happened. France and Britain and Russia became involved because of the Triple Entente agreement, just as Germany and Austria-Hungary were bound to each other by the Triple Alliance (Italy bailed and joined the Allies). Everyone who got involved after that just wanted a piece of the pie.
The United States became involved because of attacks on its merchant vessels in international waters (which were probably carrying arms anyway) and its objection to the indiscriminate blockade of Britain. I'm sure a hostile colonial expansion wasn't outside president Wilson's agenda either.
In the end, nobody got much of anything for 8,500,000 dead and 21,200,000 wounded. In short, I don't think anyone's involvement in WW1 was justified.
"Hiroshima + Nagasaki"
Was it worth 400,000* civilian lives to save the 1,000,000 combat casualties that were predicted for an invasion of the Japanese homeland? We'll never know, because it never happened. Surely the destruction would have been far worse in a conventional war. I doubt Japan would have any culture left if the Allies had invaded. It would have burned up completely. And if Japan's already fragile infrastructure had been destroyed by European style bombing raids, I think many more civilians would have perished miserably in fire and from starvation than the 10's of thousands that actually did. Bottom line: Did it save lives? Yes. Did it ultimately reduce human suffering? Probably. Was it more diabolical than slaughter in battle? Tough call.
If I had been in charge, I think an offshore explosion demonstration might have been effective. If not, maybe one following bomb would have done the job. But the scientists working on the bomb weren't sure it would work at all, so it's a difficult speculation to entertain.
*I revised my atomic bomb casualties number. It was far too low. 03/17/04
"Death Star"
Something always bothered me about the Death Star...all those independent contractors! ![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif) (I love "Clerks"). But seriously folks...
The empire already demonstrated it was willing to wipe out, say, 10,000,000,000 people in one shot with intent to repeat without second thoughts. And all just to get their hands on maybe a few million rebels so they could be tortured and executed too. I think that justifies a few thousand imperial combat casualties.
Just as an aside... If you think about it, wouldn't it have been more worthwhile to gas the whole planet and steal all its mineral wealth than blow it to smithereens? Then again, if they harvested enough raw materials to build a moon-sized hunk of metal, maybe planets are a dime a dozen.
It's always a lot easier to make a moral judgement in movies where the enemy is clearly inhuman.
Joined on
Wed, Feb 18 2004
Full Member
174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rommie
+
25857
Thu, 18 Mar 04 01:25 PM
Hey, wow - I appear to be agreeing with you on everything now. This is quite cool in a way (though it makes for a dull debate).
We appear to be the only people on this thread, ya know? We could just declare the debate closed, and that we won it by default since there were no dissenting opinions. Or should we wait a bit longer to see if any differing views show up?
Rommie
PS. One thing worth noting about the Death Star is that the Rebel Alliance were using deadly force against the legitimate government and its military forces. No-one actually voted for them. They had no "mandate from the masses". Did that make them terrorists?
Joined on
Mon, Jan 26 2004
Earth orbit
Regular Member
606
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chameleon
+
25865
Thu, 18 Mar 04 03:37 PM
This thread doesn't have nearly as many posts as some of the others. Maybe we should let it linger a little.
I think the rebels were not terrorists in the modern sense. They usually complied with the rules of war that we have on earth while conducting a guerilla campaign (extemely difficult to do if you're in a Columbian jungle and not in space). And I don't mean to reveal my complete dork-dom, but I think the members of the Alliance were actually planet-wide rebellions. Either way, if we're going by the Geneva Conventions, partisans don't need a mandate from the masses to operate legitimately...but they do have other rules to follow.
The rebels usually would have been entitled to prisoner of war status if captured, which I think is neccessary (but maybe not sufficient) to label them as an army of self-liberation and not a terrorist organization. Also, they never targeted civilian populations (that we know about) to meet their political objectives. The rebels generally met the Geneva Convention requirements for prisoners of war status, namely:
a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
c) that of carrying arms openly.
d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Notice that al Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo Bay meet none of these conditions (those of them that are not just civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time).
Back to star wars. I said they qualified as prisoners of war "most of the time" because of two notable "special ops" exceptions:
1) when Han and Luke wore the uniform of the enemy to move freely about the first death star (violates rule b and probably d)
2) when Han, Leia, and Chewbacca gained access to Endor in an imperial shuttle. (violates rules b, and probably d)
In both cases, the rebels assumed the persona of the enemy to gain access. This doesn't neccessarily make them terrorists, but it does make them war criminals if they're caught. Nations have a monopoly on war. Insurgents are free to recuse themselves once they've overthrown the existing government. Otherwise, tough luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chameleon
+
25866
Thu, 18 Mar 04 03:45 PM
I think the main point we were beating around the bush earlier on is that I have a part of me that hates making subjective judgements. If I have to make a subjective judgement, I want to rationally exclude as many options as I can before I do that. Case in point with pacifism.
Yes, I can make a decision on whether the first world war was justified or not, but it's not very satisfying because I can't rigorously outline my reasons for doing so. General philosophies are much easier to argue about when you can keep context out of the picture. Unfortunately, that's not possible most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Guest,
5 yr 248 days ago
I apologize having not properly joined the forum yet. I prefer to lurk for a bit and assess the forum in question. But, I digress.
This particular topic stood out to me, as I happen to be currently writing a college paper on it. I must admit, all of the arguments made were splendid points, and I was thoroughly impressed with the use of facts and reference materials.
I, personally, am a pacifist. I might like to add that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a die-hard (I believe that the term thrown around the office was "Absolute") pacifist. In one of the hypothetical situations explained, where countless lives of my loved ones and strangers alike would be jeopardized by my inactivity and refusal to kill, I suppose I would be willing to take the shot. However, if only my life were at stake, I believe (because I have never been subjected to a situation which has properly tested my belief) that I would remain pacifistic and allow my own life to be taken. Granted, this does encourage further violence, but the blood is not (figuratively) on my hand.
However, you're right. There isn't too much of a debate going on here, since we all tend to agree with one another. If you don't mind, I think I shall toss a few different flavors into the pot.
For example, there are more conditional factors involved with "War vs. Pacifism" then always meet the eye. We all (I assume) dwell in countries that are not oft ravaged by war or plague, which (I assume again!) can change our possible outlooks on the whole subject, completely.
I'd like to cite a favorite book of mine: "Bearing a Red Sword" by Piers Anthony. It is a fictitious book, however since we are on the subject of "hypothetical" situations, I'm sure you all will be open-minded to it.
In one particular scenario, there was a war being fought between two middle-eastern (or at least, third-world) nations. This particular battle was to be one of an immensely bloody, and seemingly unnecessary one: Several thousand children (ages 8-10) would be attacking a heavily fortified, barracaded position, complete with mounted machine gun, concrete sniper emplacements, missile launchers, etc. etc. etc. (being of a non-militaristic background, exact fortification standards are unknown to me. Please forgive my lack of description). In essence, thousands of children were being lead into battle like lambs to the slaughter.
Some of the "Powers that Be" in this novel congregated and discussed the plight of these children. The western viewpoint, from which this battle was scrutinized, showed a heinous act of massacre and cowardliness. Surely the future generation was not to be wasted like this! It was, at best, a crime against humanity to put such young children on the front lines, allowing more experienced and valuable soldiers to take up the rear for maximum strategic value.
Upon closer inspection of the situation of one young boy, it was shown that soldiers had burned his home down, and killed his brothers and sisters. His father was drafted, and his mother was working a dead-end job for starvation wages. His only option was to join the military, for his pay would be sent directly home to his mother, who could then afford to pay for food and decent shelter. If he were to die, she would be paid a significant sum to compensate for losses, and would be able to make a living for some time after.
Again, this is a situation of "someone you love will suffer if you do not kill", but I thought it offered an interesting spin on the other hypothetical situations.
I think it is important to recognize that War (I return to the subject, "War vs. Pacifism", because we seem to have drifted from the morality of war to the pacifism of an individual) is not immoral or of negative ethicalities (if there is such a word) unless it is -abused-. Granted, mankind has varied views on what the "abuse" of war is, so it's a difficult thing to define. War is simply a necessary end, and as anything comes to exist, it surely must end someday.
War (when not "abused") can be compared to burning a fallow field, or the cut of the surgeons knife. When one burns a fallow field, it burns the weeds which inhabit it, and fertilize the soil with their ash. The act of burning may seem violent, but it has a favorable outcome. Similarly with the surgeons knife, some healthy flesh must be damaged to remove a cancerous tumor, but the end result is well worth the sacrifice. A hypocritical aspect of pacifism (I regret to admit, being one) is that such things are often unaccounted for.
Furthermore, we know for a fact that Mankind is not a "reasonable creature". In a utopic society, pacifism would be a perfect philosophy (if I may go so far as to call it that). But because we do not live in a utopia, pacifism is not (always) a realistic option.
Given the hypothetical situations of "Blow one persons brains out to save the lives of countless loved ones and strangers alike", I would have to add my own "Option C" and shoot them in the leg. Forgive me for not recalling the author of this quote (as I have only heard it used by a dear friend of mine), but I personally believe that:
"If ya kill 'em, they don't learn nothin'."
I'm afraid that is all I can think of at the moment. I'm currently at work, and as such, I must get back to it. I'll attempt to find this thread again when I return home.
In the meantime, if anyone cares to post their thoughts on what I've written, I would definately like to see them.
Thank you for reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chameleon
+
25987
Sat, 20 Mar 04 06:28 AM
Thanks so much for you input! You should register and post more often. Don't feel bad about posting at work...I do it a lot!
I thought your example of the child warriors was very interesting. But something bothers me about this situation. Shouldn't the powers that be in the countries where this war is going on be preserving their own youth instead of letting them join the military for the sole purpose of vengeance? How is it at all ethical to send children into battle and justify it simply because the children are mad at the enemy? If the government already has the money to pay combat death compensation to the families, what other reason do they have for offering such a payment except to lure naive children into becoming low-cost soldiers? And who are the trained soldiers fighting to protect if not the children they are putting on the front lines?
This kind of "quid pro quo" bargaining can work in both a passive and a combative way. Whether you offer yourself up as a prostitute or a soldier to feed your family, violence is still getting the upper hand. A third party has to act to break the cycle.
Foreign powers would be right to intervene if for no other reason than to save innocent (albeit misguided) life. Turning civilians into combatants by appeals to young and irrational minds doesn't automatically make their deaths in battle any less objectionable. Especially when the ignorant and untrained are used for meat shields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rommie
+
25996
Sat, 20 Mar 04 10:51 AM
| Foreign powers would be right to intervene |
|
.
Wow. Well, I've found something with which I disagree here. Although, from recent Earth history, it would seem that this attitude is shared by the American government, at least. I find it sick.
Of course, its easy for you to say that, if your country has got bigger guns than everyone else, but I don't think you'd feel too great if someone with even bigger guns came along and "intervened" in your country, because of aspects it found morally reprehensible, would you?
How old do you have to be, in your view, before you are deemed fit to choose to fight for your country? What is the age limit below which a citizen need fear reprisals against its nation by foreign powers trying to claim the moral high ground? Britain and America both send children to war - albeit slightly older children (16), but children nonetheless. You can die for your country at sixteen in Britain, two years before you are considered old enough to watch movies containing the same violence. Is not the situation similar in USA? If a (hypothetical) foreign alien power came along and "intervened" because they thought that twenty five was a more appropriate minimum age to be a soldier, that would be okay with you, yes?
Of course, Guest's example was fictitious, but even in a real war situation, I hope you would never be foolish enough to believe that just because a government claims that the enemy do nasty evil things, that it therefore must be true. To kill a whole bunch of people you've never met before because you've been told that they are evil people who do horrible things to their citizens almost certainly means only that you have been lied to. Truth is always the first casualty of war.
Rommie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chameleon
+
26071
Mon, 22 Mar 04 02:28 AM
You can enlist voluntarily in the US army for active duty if you are between 17 and 34 years old. The draft, if it is instated by Congress, begins at age 20. The age sequence goes 20-21-22-23-24-25-19-18. There hasn't been a case where the draft age needed to be extended below 18. Incidentally, there is legislation in Congress right now to reinstate the draft in 2005 (how convenient! Right after an election year!). My vote this year will definitely be influenced by this. At what age does the British draft start?
Even if children are allowed to be on active duty, do they have to serve on the front lines? Are you claiming that it wasn't a crime to put the Hitler Youth on the front lines in the final days of WW2? THEY believed what they were fighting for and they were slaughtered for it. The situation Guest was describing is even more dispicable: put the kids on the front line so you don't waste "valuable" trained troops! I mean, come on! Armed forces operate in different ways, but doesn't the line need to be drawn somewhere? Who's interests are _really_ being served by letting children carry arms into battle? And this isn't a hypothetical situation. Countless children serve in militias and armies in Africa even today. "I'm just trying to support my family" doesn't make it any less wrong. Is prostituting yourself to support your family okay because you do it willingly? How about buying and selling controlled substances or arms trafficing?
As for what defines who is a child, what is the age in the country where these people are serving? If it's sixteen and there's a regiment of third-graders on the battlefield, wouldn't you say we have issues to work out here?
Countries with organized armies set rules as to who can serve. Those rules may differ from country to country, but they are rules for a reason. Is a ten-year-old with an AK-47 really going to be an effective soldier? He can't even obey his mommy, let alone be expected to obey orders while running through a mine-field. Free-for-all enlistment isn't justified tactically (unless of course you need bodies to shield your "valuable" soldiers). The real question that needs to be asked about age in the military is when can you expect a person to be able to understand why they, personally, are fighting? Is being able to pick up a machine gun sufficient as long as you're mad at "that guy on the other side?"
|
|
|
|
|
Guest,
5 yr 246 days ago
I would have thought it pretty obvious that the last thing Generals are worried about is whether their lovely little troopers understand what they are fighting for, or why. Generals are far too busy worrying about how to win wars. Further, the job of a good soldier is not to understand why they are fighting, nor "to be mad at the guy on the other side" but simply to follow orders WITHOUT QUESTION.
|