Subject:
|
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:02:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2195 times
|
| |
|
|
"Moz (Chris Moseley)" wrote:
>
> Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote
> > Still, killing the enemy in wartime is not murder. Shooting helpless
> > women and children in Vietnamese villages is murder, though, no matter
> > who tells you to do it. And sending people to die in gas chambers is
> > also murder, regardless of orders, as any sane person would say.
I disagree, depending on circumstances. (And so do you, sort of.)
Shooting helpless whomever is immoral if they're no threat. What if
letting them live will allow them to further contribute to the
infrastructure of war against your side? Kill them. The only fair war
is total war. If it's important enough to go to war over (and Vietnam
was not) then land with both feet, kill everyone who even acts like they
might stand in your way, achieve whatever objectives were set out as the
goal, and don't worry about morality. Morality isn't what war is about.
And how would you suggest killing people if not a gas chamber? What if
it proves cheaper than bullets? You are not morally outraged by
governments using gas chambers as execution methods, are you?
> Mike, while I don't want to get into a debate with you about military service
> in general, the issue of "who is the enemy" is a very fuzzy one, and at
> various times all sorts of people have been included.
I think that in war it's hard to tell sometimes and you'd do well to be
safe rather than sorry. After all, your life is on the line.
> One issue right now is: if I go to East Timor in an attempt to promote peace,
> and refuse to bear arms or defend myself, is the Indonesian Army justified
> in having me killed?
Sure. You're an enemy of the state and it would send a message.
> My whole purpose in being there is to act as an enemy of
> the state (the Indonesian one) by bearing witness to their activities. I
> am helpless, but only insofar as I choose to be. Kill me or not?
>
> Flip side: how can an army work if its members all have the right to withdraw
> at any time if they decide that an order is immoral?
Right, and most orders are immoral. As far as I'm concerned, ordering a
bunch of 'our' boys to their likely deaths is immoral regardless of the
morality of attacking those other boys. War is totaly f@%ked up as a
method of conflict resolution.
> A lot of military stuff
> only works (as far as I can tell) by reflex obedience to orders, and that is
> not compatible with holding soldiers responsible in detail for obeying orders.
I agree. But I think the world would be a better place if soldiers were
told the truth and were given more options. Especially ours in the
modern world where no other nation can pose a threat.
--Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
