moral vs. victory
Prutenia
14-02-2005, 00:48
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
(in other words: eye to eye vs. ban of war crimes)
or how about this question: who decides whats good/moral or bad/wrong?
Swimmingpool
14-02-2005, 01:28
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
The good should restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man.
If they use the same amoral actions as the bad, they cease to be the good.
When one is hunting mosters, one must take care that he does not himself become a monster.
Swimmingpool
14-02-2005, 01:41
When one is hunting mosters, one must take care that he does not himself become a monster.
Yes, you said it well. I have a feeling the neocons are gonna disagree tho...
Tummania
14-02-2005, 01:46
What's "bad"?
Typically, the victims of war crimes aren't "bad". And if you are commiting war crimes you certainly aren't "good", no matter what the reasoning behind them may be. Usually both sides end up being total bastards, like in Yugoslavia or Israel/Palestine
The Holy Palatinate
14-02-2005, 01:50
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
(in other words: eye to eye vs. ban of war crimes)
If we were weak enough to lose, we'd be to panicky to ask the question. That you can still ask the question without being (literally) lynched indicates that we don't need to lower our moral standards.
Losing men - that's trickier. However, consider the propoganda war: if we play it squeaky clean we reduce the motivation to fight against us. Note that this applies whether 1% or 98% of the population is opposed to us - there'll be a swinging group to influence.
Finally, and nastily, if you're tempted by war crimes, why not subcontract the war on terror out to other nations? Tell Turkey that they can have the Ottoman empire back on the condition that we never here from the Arab world again. It just "those who sup with the devil should use a long spoon", of course, but using pre-warped people beats corrupting our own people.
Yes, you said it well. I have a feeling the neocons are gonna disagree tho...
I actually butchered something Nietzsche said.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Elsburytonia
14-02-2005, 02:08
When the enemy does not obey the "Rules of War" then the book should be thrown away in favour of victory.
Dresden was an unfortunate necessity, as where Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Very much a fan of the movie 'Swordfish' -
They take a hostage, we take a bus load.
They blow-up a plane, we destroy an airport.
They destroy a building, we nuke a F***ing city!
Diaga Ceilteach Impire
14-02-2005, 02:10
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
(in other words: eye to eye vs. ban of war crimes)
if they chop our people's heads off lets do the same to them 10 times worse ,
same as if one country uses nuclear , bio or chemical , we will do the same. when country A follows the rules of war and country B breaks them , then countryA has every right to do so them selves.
:mp5: i say we go Attila the Hun style on these sobs
God bless America and Israel
Diaga Ceilteach Impire
14-02-2005, 02:34
When the enemy does not obey the "Rules of War" then the book should be thrown away in favour of victory.
Dresden was an unfortunate necessity, as where Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Very much a fan of the movie 'Swordfish' -
They take a hostage, we take a bus load.
They blow-up a plane, we destroy an airport.
They destroy a building, we nuke a F***ing city!
very very very well said i like this guy :)
Passive Cookies
14-02-2005, 02:36
An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
Chess Squares
14-02-2005, 02:39
When the enemy does not obey the "Rules of War" then the book should be thrown away in favour of victory.
Dresden was an unfortunate necessity, as where Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Very much a fan of the movie 'Swordfish' -
They take a hostage, we take a bus load.
They blow-up a plane, we destroy an airport.
They destroy a building, we nuke a F***ing city!
i give it 3 months before the world is a smoking unlivable hole
threats of death dont scare those with nothing to live for
Willamena
14-02-2005, 02:41
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
(in other words: eye to eye vs. ban of war crimes)
In order to be at all distinguishable from bad, good must use different methods, and with different reasons.
If good does the same as bad, it is not good.
When one is hunting mosters, one must take care that he does not himself become a monster.
Precisely, although I'm having strange mental images about what, precisely, a "moster" looks like. Currently, they're large, green, and scaly with purple stripes. It really is too early in the morning...
Another take on the same point of view (also used in Fiddler on the Roof):
If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the Whole world will be blind and toothless.
–Mahatma Gandhi
Elsburytonia
14-02-2005, 03:10
WAR! :mp5: hoo. Wo wo wo, what is it good for? :sniper:
Well it controls population growth. :rolleyes:
Revitalises the building industry. :)
Is a catylist for technological advancement (Alloys, medical proceedures, computers...) :)
Gives psychotic killers something to do. :confused:
Creates exciting points in history that can later make material for cool movies. :D
*looks around*
I should shut up now, yeah! :headbang:
BastardSword
14-02-2005, 03:19
Shall the "good" - in order to defeat the "bad" - use the same weapons and the same actions that the "bad" do? Or should they restrict themselves for not harming the bases of their own moral and humanity and risk to loose, or at least to loose more man?
(in other words: eye to eye vs. ban of war crimes)
I think that to win a war but lose your soul profits you nothing.