09 Apr 10
Originally posted by BeyerIt isn't - if Force X is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties.
No. It depends on intent. Since Force X is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties (in the context of war), their course of action is applaudable. Why is this despicable to you?
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFBut what is "best" without heading into the land of the absurd? Apparently sacrificing 1000 soldiers to save 1 civilian is absurd, and therefore isn't "doing best to reduce civilian casualites".
It isn't - if Force X [b]is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties.[/b]
But you do imply that more soldiers should be sacrificed to save civilians as "best" as can be done...
I think a lot of miscommunication is occuring in this thread because the line between "doing our best" and "making absurd sacrifices" is not well defined. I doubt anyone disagrees that the military should do it's best to prevent civilian casualties as long as it's not an absurd situation with huge losses and minimal gain.
The thing is, different people disagree about what's absurd and what's "doing your best".
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI find the NATO war against Serbia troubling where (if I've got this back of a fag packet toll right) the Serbian army lost 400 or so, but maybe as many as 5,700 innocent civilians were killed too. NATO meanwhile lost no combatants. This is surely an example of "doing your best" to minimize your own casualities, and not an example of "doing your best" to avoid inflicting casualties on innocent civilians.
The thing is, different people disagree about what's absurd and what's "doing your best".
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFIs it immoral to only consider strategies that minimize harm to your own forces then? The thrust of your argument seems to suggest this.
NATO meanwhile lost no combatants. This is surely an example of "doing your best" to minimize your own casualities, and not an example of "doing your best" to avoid inflicting casualties on innocent civilians.
In a weigh up of moral choice you seem to be suggesting that it is better to do your best to avoid inflicting casualties on innocent civilians even though that may mean increasing the risk of sacrificing your own troops. I'm not sure why this strategy becomes more moral.
X and Y should only be bound by rules if both observe them. If Force Y chooses not to fight by conventional means in more appropriate civilian free theaters of war, then why should Force X bend over backwards to accommodate Y's flagrant rule bending?
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFAll your 'armchair' theoretical nonsense is irrelevant,as usual, in the context of reality where deadbeats like Hamas do not give a damn about sacrificing the lives of civilians in the hope of preserving their own.
It isn't - if Force X [b]is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties.[/b]
09 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusWell, let's face it, just about everything discussed here at Debates is "armchair' theoretical" stuff - to some degree - and jolly good it is too, for the most part. Each poster brings along - and waves - their own schtick, some more substantial or 'real' than others. That's why so many people hang around here and bother to share or tussle with each other over issues little and large, and issues grave and giddy. You're one of the funny little characters here with your famously non-adhesive barbs and unctuous pronouncements. Good for you.
All your 'armchair' theoretical nonsense is irrelevant,as usual, in the context of reality...
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFI think more specifics would make for a more interesting conversation.
Well, let's face it, just about everything discussed here at Debates is "armchair' theoretical" stuff - to some degree - and jolly good it is too, for the most part. Each poster brings along - and waves - their own schtick, some more substantial or 'real' than others. That's why so many people hang around here and bother to share or tussle with each other over i ...[text shortened]... rs here with your famously non-adhesive barbs and unctuous pronouncements. Good for you.
In your scenario, it all depends.
10 Apr 10
Originally posted by kmax87The members of Force X are soldiers whose job it is to engage with enemy soliders in order, ultimately, to protect or advance the interests of Civilians X.
So the lives of the soldiers in Force X are less innocent?
When I mention the "innocence" of Civilians Y, it's an implicit reference to the fact that they are not soldiers, they are not armed, they are not killing members of Force X, nor are they a threat to Force X, except that they make it awkward ( or even 'morally dubious' ) for Force X to carry out its task.
If you want to talk about the "innocence" of Force X soldiers, that's fine, but surely that "innocence" is lost as soon as they kill unarmed non-combatants?
10 Apr 10
Originally posted by kmax87Well, as stated in the OP, Force Y is inferior to Force X, and being attacked. So in all this 'hell/reality of war' that everyone is talking about, the inferior Force should line up in the open to be killed by its superior opponent?
...Force Y chooses not to fight by conventional means in more appropriate civilian free theaters of war...
10 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFWhy not surrender and try other methods(political etc) to achieve their goals.
Well, as stated in the OP, Force Y is inferior to Force X, and being attacked. So in all this 'hell/reality of war' that everyone is talking about, the inferior Force should line up in the open to be killed by its superior opponent?
If they are the weaker force, then is it moral for them to wage a war that guarentees the death of their finest. If in their assessment of their weakness they attempt human shielding as a means of levelling the playing field then surely they doubly compound their lack of morality. They know that they send their forces to a certain death in open combat, so rather than recognise and accept their unpreparedness for armed conflict, they pressgang their local populations into the conflict, no doubt with threats of death if they object, and yet we're debating the morality or lack of, of those whom they purposely waylay with moral dillemas?????
10 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFYou are the most pretentious poster on this forum, boasting of your accomplishments which fail to reveal themselves. You also appear to suffer from verbal diarrhoea.
Well, let's face it, just about everything discussed here at Debates is "armchair' theoretical" stuff - to some degree - and jolly good it is too, for the most part. Each poster brings along - and waves - their own schtick, some more substantial or 'real' than others. That's why so many people hang around here and bother to share or tussle with each other over i ...[text shortened]... rs here with your famously non-adhesive barbs and unctuous pronouncements. Good for you.