| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2006 10:32:17 AM · #101 |
What's a proportionate attack? 3 jews for 3 arabs? 2 women + 1 kid for 1 armed fighter? The fear of one city block for a month as rockets rain down around them in return for bombing another city block flat?
What utter nonsense. War is war, prosecute it as such. If you know your enemy can level your cities, do not provoke them into doing so. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 12:43:29 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What's a proportionate attack? 3 jews for 3 arabs? 2 women + 1 kid for 1 armed fighter? The fear of one city block for a month as rockets rain down around them in return for bombing another city block flat?
What utter nonsense. War is war, prosecute it as such. If you know your enemy can level your cities, do not provoke them into doing so. |
I am not quite sure what this means. Should anyone who considers themselves "provoked" be entitled to exercise the maximum level of force available to them?
Does your rule apply only in respect of the US and its allies? Or are you trying to justify Palestinian suicide bombing and the flying of planes into buildings by people who consider themselves "provoked"?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:04:50 PM · #103 |
Interesting point Legalbeagle regarding "proportionate attack"...
I was having this discussion elsewhere, regarding potential future events. And how should we respond. To me, it is important to consider such now, before such events may happen, so as not to act out of raw passion, fear and fury.
And it's something we need to consider. Islamic fascists view nuking New York as proportionate. As proportionate as some consider the Afghanistan/Iraq war? or Israel's response to Hezbolleh...
And if mankind were to simply escallate it would leave most of the world glowing in nuclear flames.
****
Scenario: Al-Quaeda operative has stated that a nuclear device has been brought into the U.S. across the Mexican border. Muslims are cautioned to leave New York and Washington D.C. The perpetrators will all have christian/western names (David, Peter, etc).
So my question, if islamic terrorists were to succeed. How should we respond?
I'd am curious to hear people's opinion now...in foresight. Rather than all the hindsight we all tend to have on 9-11. It's not something we want to see, it's not even something we want to think about. But we should be prepared...
***
To me, knowing and preparing a response is critical. Not just to our defense but also to ensure constraint. (Many murders occur in the midst of passion and fury. Had those individuals been prepared or had time to think their actions would be different. Likewise, if such events were to occur the passions, fear, and fury would be immense. We would need to keep ourselves both on a national and individual level bridled...yet, there would be no doubt that we'd have to also act.
So how?
I guess more simply put... "How do we respond to evil without becoming evil?" (which I think is your point Legalbeagle.)
That said, my question is what would be an appropriate response. Doing nothing...is not appropriate. But what to do?
What do people think would be an "appropriate" response to such an event...???
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:08:39 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What utter nonsense. |
I am not quite sure what this means. |
What utter nonsense to try and fit war into some sort of moral bounds. Morals are purely subjective creations. Morals are what let Israeli's who bomb apartment buildings sleep at night, the same as morals are what let Palestinians sleep at night who send their children off to commit suicide. They both think they are morally justified in their actions.
Originally posted by lealbeagle:
Should anyone who considers themselves "provoked" be entitled to exercise the maximum level of force available to them? |
What authority is there that legislates acceptable levels of violence? All I have seen is violence and reaction to it. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:13:51 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What utter nonsense to try and fit war into some sort of moral bounds. Morals are purely subjective creations. Morals are what let Israeli's who bomb apartment buildings sleep at night, the same as morals are what let Palestinians sleep at night who send their children off to commit suicide. They both think they are morally justified in their actions. |
You missed the lesson of World War I, and perhaps every war of the 20th century. Every human activity requires moral bounds. It is the sentiment of your first sentence that led to the mustard gas attacks of WWI, the firebombing of cities in WW2, the rape of Nanking, the My Lai massacre, etc.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:16:24 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What utter nonsense. |
I am not quite sure what this means. |
What utter nonsense to try and fit war into some sort of moral bounds. Morals are purely subjective creations. Morals are what let Israeli's who bomb apartment buildings sleep at night, the same as morals are what let Palestinians sleep at night who send their children off to commit suicide. They both think they are morally justified in their actions.
Originally posted by lealbeagle:
Should anyone who considers themselves "provoked" be entitled to exercise the maximum level of force available to them? |
What authority is there that legislates acceptable levels of violence? All I have seen is violence and reaction to it. |
So, in your view, accidentally killing a few civilians with a guided missile, suicide bombings, flying planes into buildings and leveling a city with a nuclear bomb are all equivalent? |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:54:41 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What utter nonsense to try and fit war into some sort of moral bounds. Morals are purely subjective creations. Morals are what let Israeli's who bomb apartment buildings sleep at night, the same as morals are what let Palestinians sleep at night who send their children off to commit suicide. They both think they are morally justified in their actions. |
You missed the lesson of World War I, and perhaps every war of the 20th century. Every human activity requires moral bounds. It is the sentiment of your first sentence that led to the mustard gas attacks of WWI, the firebombing of cities in WW2, the rape of Nanking, the My Lai massacre, etc. |
You missed the lesson of the entire history of humanity. Violence is part of our existence. While firebombing Dresden or Tokyo seems like a horrific event to you, it seemed a morally justified and necessary action to those who did it. Every single violent act since the beginning of time has seemed justified to someone. Arguing about appropriate levels of violence is ludicrous. Some time, some place, some situation is going to come about that will warrant some level of violence to some person. This is not Utopia, it is Earth.
Reverse my sentiment. "It makes sense to prosecute war within moral bounds". Ok, who sets the bounds? Who agrees on what is moral? Again, morality is a subjective notion driven by culture, enviornment, religion, etc. Structures that in and of themselves create cause for violence. So the causes of violence will be the basis for determining an appropriate level of violence?
Accept it for what is is. Violence/War is part of life, and its justification is determined by those still standing when it ends. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 02:24:03 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Reverse my sentiment. "It makes sense to prosecute war within moral bounds". Ok, who sets the bounds? Who agrees on what is moral? |
Isn't this exactly what the Geneva Conventions do, albeit imperfectly? |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 02:39:45 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Reverse my sentiment. "It makes sense to prosecute war within moral bounds". Ok, who sets the bounds? Who agrees on what is moral? |
Your questions about setting bounds and who agrees apply to any sort of morality applied to anything. People do agree on what is moral. Sometimes they disagree and argue over it, but they still try to apply morality.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Again, morality is a subjective notion driven by culture, enviornment, religion, etc. Structures that in and of themselves create cause for violence. So the causes of violence will be the basis for determining an appropriate level of violence? |
That's almost a tautology. These "structures" are the cause of everything. So yes, the violence and the morality come from the same "structures." That doesn't mean one can't be applied to the other. In fact, it has to. In fact, this is agreed upon by every military force in existence, which has a Code of Conduct, formal or informal. Why would you disagree with this notion?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 02:58:15 PM · #110 |
The Geneva Conventions were written by the people who did the firebombing and the dropping of atomic bombs. They are now championed by a worldwide body composed of member states that commit all sorts of atrocities on a daily basis. Draw whatever conclusions you like...
Originally posted by posthumous:
People do agree on what is moral. Sometimes they disagree and argue over it |
Well, there you go. There is no agreed upon code of morality.
Originally posted by posthumous:
this is agreed upon by every military force in existence, which has a Code of Conduct, formal or informal. Why would you disagree with this notion? |
There is no universal code of conduct shared between millitaries across the globe. Even within one millitary, the US for example, there is a defined code of conduct which then bows to situations as they arise. Witness the recent debate over prisoner interrogations as evidence to this reality. There was already a code of conduct defined by the millitary and one defined by the Geneva Conventions. Neither one held sway over the actions of the people on the ground in the heat of the moment.
Again, the morality of an act is determined soley by those who perpetuate the act. As such, it makes no sense to use morality as the benchmark for 'an appropriate level of violence' or 'the proper conduct of war'. Whoever wins declares the actions were justified. Only generations later are people in a position to kick back and argue about what wsa right and what was wrong based on the morality of the time in which they live, which is likely different from the time in which the events occurred. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 03:04:25 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
There is no universal code of conduct shared between millitaries across the globe. |
There is no universal code of conduct period. Does that mean we can't be moral in war or peace? Because morality is not universal?
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Again, the morality of an act is determined soley by those who perpetuate the act. As such, it makes no sense to use morality as the benchmark for 'an appropriate level of violence' or 'the proper conduct of war'. |
According to your logic, it never makes sense to use morality. Some of the acts perpetrated "on the ground" in Iraq have been deemed immoral by military tribunals. Soldiers have gone to jail for their acts. Are you saying that they shouldn't have, because anything goes? You are arguing for nihilism and anarchism.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 03:38:15 PM · #112 |
| I am simply arguing against the ongoing, tedious debate about appropriate levels of response/violence in war. The appropriate response in a given situation is one the that meets your goals. Wether or not your goals are moral is another argument entirely. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 04:14:35 PM · #113 |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 04:27:49 PM · #114 |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 04:56:30 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I am simply arguing against the ongoing, tedious debate about appropriate levels of response/violence in war. The appropriate response in a given situation is one the that meets your goals. Wether or not your goals are moral is another argument entirely. |
You're last sentence seems to suggest there is a universal standard of morality but I believe you're arguing there is no such thing. Or are you saying one can have goals that are against their own morals?
Message edited by author 2006-09-19 16:57:13. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 05:18:41 PM · #116 |
| I'm saying that morals are defined by the people who carry out whatever action is being discussed. The only thing universal about it is that any given person has some sense of wether or not their actions or justified and this applies to all people. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:11:18 PM · #117 |
| Are you saying there is no universal 'good and evil'? |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:41:38 PM · #118 |
There is no universal definition of what is good and what is evil. The definition varies depending on location, situation and period of time.
The strong beliefs you have about what is right and wrong may or may not be shared by some amount of other humans alive at the same time as you.
Your beliefs are your beliefs, not laws of the universe.
It is a certainty that the people dropping bombs on your house believe they are in the right, regardless of what opinion you or the rest of the world may have about the matter. If you are lucky enough to live through it, you can cry injustice to whoever else cares to listen.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:59:51 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
There is no universal definition of what is good and what is evil. The definition varies depending on location, situation and period of time.
The strong beliefs you have about what is right and wrong may or may not be shared by some amount of other humans alive at the same time as you.
Your beliefs are your beliefs, not laws of the universe.
It is a certainty that the people dropping bombs on your house believe they are in the right, regardless of what opinion you or the rest of the world may have about the matter. If you are lucky enough to live through it, you can cry injustice to whoever else cares to listen. |
Soo, the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people can be a good thing according to you?
How about hacking your family to bits with a machete? Another good thing?
Believing that an action is right, does not make it so.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 07:01:05 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Believing that an action is right, does not make it so. |
What makes it wrong? You believing it's wrong? Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 07:24:27 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Believing that an action is right, does not make it so. |
What makes it wrong? You believing it's wrong? Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? |
Well, you certainly take the case for ethical relativism to the extreme. I understand the concept, I just think your use of it is misguided.
I believe that ethical relativism extends only so far, and there are moral absolutes. Actions are inherently good or bad regardless of consequences.
In most every case, good consequences flow from good actions. And, ultimately, bad consequences flow from bad actions. Good actions are not good just because good results typically follow from them; good actions are inherently good just as massive objects are inherently heavy. It's just naturally so. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 07:42:06 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Interesting point Legalbeagle regarding "proportionate attack"...
I guess more simply put... "How do we respond to evil without becoming evil?" (which I think is your point Legalbeagle.)
|
Not really - I wanted to know if routerguy666 genuinely thought that provocation justifies a military response at any level. He has not really addressed the point, except to say that he views the issue in the abstract and by reference to morality, which is fundamentally uncertain - an avoidance tactic, driving the question into the quagmire of definitions of good/bad. It ignores the point that the word "proportionate" exists and has a generally understood meaning.
It struck me that this kind of reasoning is usually only employed by extremists. I anticipated that routerguy was using this argument to justify Israel's attack on Lebanon, but did not take into account the counter example by which it could be used to justify any reaction in any circumstances such as, say, the destruction of the WTC.
Originally posted by theSaj:
That said, my question is what would be an appropriate response. Doing nothing...is not appropriate. But what to do? |
Since you asked, I think that taking steps to minimise the reasons for terrorist action before it happens is a good start. Intelligence agencies need additional resources. By developing good relations with the countries in which the attacks might be originated and its neighbours, our intelligence capability will be enhanced and the groundswell of support for the terrorists dampened.
Military reaction must be measured, have clearly identified objectives, and stick to them. Invasion of a country would only be justified if it was sponsoring or refusing to take action in relation to its citizens. Otherwise, the aid would be better spent assisting the local regime apply the rule of law internally.
If these rules had been applied in the wake of 9/11, Afghanistan would still have been invaded, Iraq would not (at least Saddam opposed terrorism), and considerable pressure would have applied to the regimes in Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran etc to crack down on dissident groups operating within their borders. Foreign aid and assistance with security might have drastically reduced the ability of those groups to operate effectively. Allied states would not have been so easily fragmented and would have retained some moral itegrity. Financial aid would have encouraged growth in the region and further eliminated causes of resentment.
However - this ignores the fact that there is a limited amount of oil left on the planet and the utter dependence of all Western nations upon its continued supply at current levels. I fear that a crunch is going to happen, and this is one of the precursors to broader conflict over energy in the next half century. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 07:53:57 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I wanted to know if routerguy666 genuinely thought that provocation justifies a military response at any level. He has not really addressed the point |
Certainly I did. Again, an appropriate level of response is one that achieves the goals you set out to acheive. That is the sole factor in making the determination.
I then said, and everyone latched on to this, wether or not your goals are moral is another argument entirely. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 08:00:48 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Believing that an action is right, does not make it so. |
What makes it wrong? You believing it's wrong? Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? |
Well, you certainly take the case for ethical relativism to the extreme. I understand the concept, I just think your use of it is misguided.
I believe that ethical relativism extends only so far, and there are moral absolutes. Actions are inherently good or bad regardless of consequences.
In most every case, good consequences flow from good actions. And, ultimately, bad consequences flow from bad actions. Good actions are not good just because good results typically follow from them; good actions are inherently good just as massive objects are inherently heavy. It's just naturally so. |
I respect your take on things, and certainly it is not an unhealthy view. However I have studied too much history to accept it.
The decimation of pretty much all indigenous peoples of North America led to what most people would consider a 'good outcome'. Two nations in Canada and the US where the populations enjoy liberties and prosperity not often found in history.
The firebombing of Dresden, the atrocities that marched in the wake of the Soviet tropps as they pushed into Germany - these things resulted in the demise of Nazism and ended the slaughter of East European Jews.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japan ended the atrocities being committed in Nanjing, the Phillipines, etc.
Were those proportionate or appropriate responses? Were they acts of good? What you call moral relativism I call realism. People make choices and take actions based on what they believe is right and justified and there is no higher power to consecrate their actions or put a big Thumbs Up in the sky. Things happen, more things happen as a result. Some good, some bad. History goes on. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 08:27:35 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I wanted to know if routerguy666 genuinely thought that provocation justifies a military response at any level. He has not really addressed the point |
Certainly I did. Again, an appropriate level of response is one that achieves the goals you set out to acheive. That is the sole factor in making the determination.
I then said, and everyone latched on to this, wether or not your goals are moral is another argument entirely. |
Fair enough - I was distracted by the moralising (I agree with you that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong, good or bad - but I do think that there is a common biological response to certain things - eg those by which we are revulsed, such as incest and cannibalism - and some principles operate in a fairly common manner in our environment where they appear to promote a functioning and prosperous society, such as rules against murder and theft).
The bit I have a problem with is your statement that "If you know your enemy can level your cities, do not provoke them into doing so". I acknowledge that a party may use disproportionate means deliberately in order to achieve a goal. However, you appear to ignore the fact that proportionality is a principle that is generally recognised and applied in international relations (it promotes a healthy international society by limiting the scope for escalation). You appear to lay the blame for any disproportionate attack on the party attacked, rather than the disproportionate attacker.
The abstracted argument on morality, whether the disproportionate action *should* be taken, whether it can be right or wrong, does not properly reflect my concern. In the real life examples being discussed, the proportionality principle is being misapplied and its misapplication (ie the attacker) is ripe for criticism because it is generally destabilising.
Message edited by author 2006-09-19 20:32:16.
|
|
