OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
I offered explanation. I would not offer excuse, because I reject your indictment.
Agreed. "Excuse" was the wrong choice of word on my part.
The soldiers are doing as ordered, as they should. Unless an order is in direct violation of the military code of justice, they are to obey orders.
The above, however, sounds like an attempt to justify their actions. Were the Kapos in concentration camps only following orders? 'Just as well some of us don't simply follow orders; otherwise, we'd still be living under the shackles of absolutism.
Sometimes people do offer that as justification. If you look at the military code of justice, it pretty well determines many things as unlawful, and a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor, may not use the excuse of following orders if they go against the code.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Such is life. I guess I am cold, but I remove emotion from my decision making process, when it is applicable.
Ah yes, back to the ideas of our friend Nietzsche and his attempt to remove pity from his character. Some believe he had a hideous reawakening of his values which sent him into insanity, as exemplified by putting his arms around a horse which was being beaten as his last gesture before descending into madness.
Actually my idea of warfare would fall under Sun Tzu, not Nietzsche. I do not believe in everything Nietzsche says, and I do not consider him an idol. I do not believe we should remove emotion from everything, if you read closely what I wrote, notice the part I have put in bold.
quote:
Empathy is part of what makes us human beings. Remove the consequences of this action from the decision making process, e.g. widespread misery, and we're moving towards robots, maybe killing machines, rather than gods.
I agree in part, but not in warfare. The object in warfare is to defeat the enemy. If civilian casualties can be reduced, without sacrificing operational objectives, then fine, but things must be prioritized. Then again I am likely consider a robotic, killing machine by some.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
It is a noble act, based upon perception. Are you asking why I consider it noble? To sacrifice part of your life, for the community, is seen as noble by me. Other opinions may vary. There is no logical arguement for or against, as the perception of noble is based upon one's ethics and morals. Obviously yours and mine, do not align.
Of course there's a logical argument against. There's no truth in this matter, I grant you, but there is no reason for personal ethics to go unquestioned. To sacrifice part of your life for the community? the consequences be damned? As a responsible human being, I'd like to think I have a duty to regulate my behaviour, understand the consequences of my actions and have no right to impose misery on others: you'd be hard pushed to argue that imposing misery on others in an attempt to readjust their value system, is of high moral quality.
My statement stands, and I will not restate it. Pacifist just do not seem to get it, I suppose. The politically correct that wish to save everyone that is experiencing any type of misery, want to save them all. I consider most of what occurs, natural cycles for the human race. Instead of evolving in areas of understanding and negotiation, we advance the areas of killing and death.
If the consequences of joining the military means misery of others, show compassion, but never show pity. If something is done wrong, be ashamed, but do not feel guilty. Pity and guilt are worthless, and crippling emotions to our development. If things were done inappropriately, in violation of the military code of justice, then hold those people responsible.
As far as high moral quality, we would first have to list out our morals, comapre them, and come to a concensus on that, before we could attmept to agree on what is high moral ground.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Your opinion that it is seriously out of order. I say that anyone that wishes to be a soldier, at any time, should have the drive to want to kick some ass. It is called motivation and killer instinct. Those that join to be engineers, may want to build schools, those that join wanting to be medics, may want to help the populace.
'All due respect, you're repeating yourself rather than respond to what is being laid before you.
In the context of this discussion, are you suggesting that joining up to satisfy a bloodlust to kill foreigners is a noble act, or something entirely different?
If that is the only reason, I would say that it meets the criteria of anti-social behavior and overt aggressive acts, so it would not only not be noble, it would by psychopathic. There is still a use for those individuals in warfare, but they should be placed in units that will not come into contact with non-combat personel.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Sure. Over 200 years ago my country was under tyranical rule, so a group of pioneers banded together to form their own nation, and through use of violence broke the chains of tyranny.
The Iraqis are in a similar situation: an occupying force has set up shop in their country.
Not very similar. The US did not colonize this area, subject them to extremely high taxes, and then ignore anything they had to say. The only similarity is warfare, and the Iraqi soil is occupied. Now ask yourself, does the Iraqi government want them there or not? Does the Iraqi government fear the further chaos that will insue, once the US leaves?
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|
RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread