The nature of war

[Jack_Dubious]

I used the word "slaughter" cause for me it conjours up the image of animals about the be slaughtered. The cow doesnt know its about to get hit over the head with a sledgehammer and turned into hamburger......just like some guy in his bed might not know a bomb is about to fall on his house.

Yes I know soldiers are people too, and that wasnt a point I was trying to make. What I think im trying to get at is exactly what you say when you say "war is not a wonderful thing", cause its not. Yet you are right when you say that sometimes its the only solution. I totally agree.
My point is that war should always be thought of as horrific and terrible, not glamorous and noble (like what hollywood would like you to think). And the enemy (soldier and civilian) is a person whos probably just fighting for what he believes in....much like ourselves.

But like I said...i agree, sometimes countries/political factions/etc. give you only one option.....



JDub

"The horror......the horror......"

Originally posted by shartley

[oldsoldier]

wanna experience the rush of war? Stay up for hours on end, stay outside for a week, through all the weather, eat bad food, then put on a blindfold and run once across a highway. that about sums it up...personal misery, with that brief moment of near death, or maybe even getting killed.
I am not trying to makr light of it, its just that soldiers suffer mentally, and experience a kind of personal discomfort that cant really be portrayed. you just kind of live with it. You poke fun at stupid things, and laugh about stuff that most others wont fint funny. Thats how you deal with boredom, the weather, and the occasional fright of "well, this could be it".
But, I am way off topic. Restola brought up a good point...one I didnt really give any consideration to. But, When I first read this post, I interpreted it to mean the "unjustified killing of noncombatants". Bombing factories stops production of war materiel. So does the sinking of merchant ships. and the bombing of telecommunication centers. This is justifiable in the sense that it stops that factory, or ships goods, from supporting the war effort. In effect, shortening the war, thus reducing casualties, both military and civilian.
Good god, I shouldnt post at 3 am...

[FatMan]

I agree with Sam on this one.

Depending on what you mean by "justify" almost any killing at all is to be avoided. Still, we make the hard decision to engage in war, and accept the responsibility for the results. We try to limit the carnage to those we consider "combatants" or to their direct support systems (weapons factories, C&C, etc.).

Once upon a time, when war happened, the armies met out in a field, lined up and went at it, and whoever was left standing at the end "won." All that has changed - war is now fought in an among the populace. When you fight that kind of war "innocents" will be killed. We have to accept the reponsibility for that.

Things like nuclear weapons and other WoMD are much harder to deal with, because they are so indescriminate. That's why we really, really try NOT to use them. You know MacArthur wanted to nuke China - thank the Lord we restrained ourselves. Was the use in Japan "justified?" I think so, but again, being justified doesn't mean we aren't responsible for the fact that we did it.

I think what worries me the most about modern war is the insane notion that we can wage war and NOT be responsible for our actions by somehow "justifying" each and every kill and saying "well that was justified, so it's not our problem." It just doesn't work that way. Our country leads the world in develping weapons systems that allow us to minimize collateral damage. Our military actively studies the issues of collateral damage and fratercide and how they relate to the rules of engagement. We have the best ratio of "justified" to "not justified" kills going. And Still, we are hounded on the issue. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep working to do better. I AM saying, we should stand up and accept the responsibility and say "yes, that happened, it was regretable, and we are STILL going to do what we think we have to do."

Everywhere you look people are trying to shed responsibility - and I think THAT is the real issue. The current topic being an excellent example of this.

FatMan

[slateman]

I hate to sound cruel but...
I war there are two types of people: Your people and everybody else. "Everybody else" can consist of the enemy and noncombatants. Now you try not to hurt the noncombatants because they relly want nothing to do with this madness, but when it comes down to it, the only people that matter are your people.

[oldsoldier]

Fatman hit on another point. We try NOT to kill innocent civilians. But, we are always held the most RESPONSIBLE when we do. How many times have you heard about the helicopter pilot who shot at our own guys in the Gulf? And, now, the pilot that killed the canadians accidentally a few weeks ago. Canadians who, mind you, were conducting live fire exercises in FRONT of the FEBA (FEBA is Forward Edge of Battle Area, basically the front lines). This is not standard procedure, and, the pilot, assuming he was being fired upon, fired back. Now, they want to prosecute the pilot. It was a mistake, and it happens. People dont seem to see that point; it is easy to make mistakes under stress like that. It is not anyone's fault, hell the canadian military should be held responsible for doing what they did.

[Quiet]

Being Canadian, I have a little difficulty swallowing what you just wrote. I don't see how the Canadian military can be blamed for that incident. The Canadian forces were under US command, the US command knew what they were doing, where they were doing it. It was an error, plain and simple. I don't hold the United States responsible, these things happen. It wasn't the intention of those pilots to bomb their allies.

[Sooky]

Canadians who, mind you, were conducting live fire exercises in FRONT of the FEBA (FEBA is Forward Edge of Battle Area, basically the front lines). This is not standard procedure, and, the pilot, assuming he was being fired upon, fired back. Now, they want to prosecute the pilot. It was a mistake, and it happens. People dont seem to see that point; it is easy to make mistakes under stress like that. It is not anyone's fault, hell the canadian military should be held responsible for doing what they did.

Actually, an audio tape was recently released of what went on in the cockpit, and the pilot stated that he thought he was being fired upon. He was then told NOT to engage because there was friendly's in the area, yet he IGNORED that, and bombed them anyways! On top of that, the pilots where on speed, on probably not quite able to think straight anyways (which, I believe, is what the pilot's defence attorneys are claiming anyways...).

So it seems like the ones to be held "responsible" should be the pilots for ignoring orders, or the US Army for requiring pilots to take drugs which inhibit their thinking.

[aaron_mag]

Simple answer....no. It is never justified. Just like making a mistake and accidently killing your allies is not justified. At the same time spilling your hot coffee on your lap while driving and hitting the car next to you and accidently killing passengers from the other car is not justified.

My point is that the world is not perfect. It would be nice to apply perfect rules for a perfect world but that is not the way it works out. It may not be justified but accidents and innocents accidently getting in the way of things that need to be done is not avoidable. The statement that "life is not fair" probably does little to console the Canadian soldiers families but it remains a reality. We have all had times when we asked the heavens "WHY?". I've had my share of asking that question (some of it pretty recent) and I have never gotten a good answer....but that is the way it is.

EDIT

Post above (typed while I was typing) talks about drugs and pilots being warned not to fire. If that was the case then I say burn them!!!!

[Orange Crush]

Originally posted by Sooky
So it seems like the ones to be held "responsible" should be the pilots for ignoring orders, or the US Army for requiring pilots to take drugs which inhibit their thinking.

US Air Force!!

[Jack_Dubious]

USAF New marketing slogan

"U.S. Air Force. We Fly HIGH!"


JDub

[Jonno06]

The killing of anyone is wrong. Be that of a soldier,or a civilian casualty. It is murder either way.

[Army]

Jonno, you're a moron.


There is killing, and there is murder. Two seperate moral conclusions. To kill without reason, is murder, and should be punished according to Gods word. To kill during protection of life, liberty, or ones country, is justified by all moral standards and any accepted religeous practices. Yes, murder can occur during war, but it is rare.

The citizen of a country that is at war, will be well aware that he/she could become a casualty. Those same "non-combatants" are building the vehicles, loading the bombs, making the rifles, and manufacturing the instruments of war. This hardly keeps them innocent. We don't have the luxury of deciding who is or isn't innocent, from 50,000ft or down the street. If you are found in a contested area, you will be fired upon until we can determine who is who or what.

Hiroshima was a major shipping and heavy industry city, it was also a POW camp. Nagasaki was a major heavy industry city. The Allies chose these cities not for their population levels, but for their military target. We could have easily dropped on Tokyo, but it wasn't much of an industrial center. Truth be known though, the Allies killed more people by firebombing Tokyo and Kobe, than were killed in either nuked city. Both actions were needed to break the war morale of Japan, so we didn't have to physically invade the island, which was estimated to result in at least a million lost lives, Allied and Japanese.

To kill a fellow human is always distasteful and horrific, but neccessary during war. War is the ultimate political failure, but far too often inevitable, and unavoidable.

[Trigger_Happy]

People are saying that it's not justified, but WHAT IS "justified"? You have to be justified by someone or something.

We are probably going to use landmines in Iraq! Bad idea? I thought so at first. Land mines kill the innocent even after the conflict! But what American pacifists never understand is this: Killing is not a side affect of war! Killing IS the war! The entire goal of training troops, making guns, bombs, etc is to DESTROY things. If we need to fight a war, we have accept the consequesnces of that.

Not using land mines would SERIOUSLY endanger MANY troops lives! Am I sorry about the poor people that may be killed as a result? VERY SOORY! On the other hand, I accept that war=carnage.

Let me get back to where I was, now. If to be "justified" a person or action must justify it, than killing "innocents" during war is justified. War involves action taken against us, and the people running the war operations also give their word that the deaths are justified.

When it's kill or be killed, we can't lay down and die because we don't want to take a life. Evil has no problem killing! If we let evil win by allowing it, than we deserve the death we will receive.

[Vendetta]

She is very humanist, and I am very American.

"Real" Americans can't be humanist?

IMO there are times when targeting and killing of innocent civilians can be justified.(Hiroshima) But then there are other times when I think it is an atrocity (Dresden).

Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.

[Jack_Dubious]

According to Army's previous post, it did have a significant military value. I personally felt it was justified due to the fact that it (and nagasaki) quickly ended the pacific war...without having to invade Japan. What military value was Dresden?

and no I dont care that they werent blonde or blue eyed. Asians and caucasians seem equally foriegn to me.(im half asian, half caucasian)

but truth be told...the fact that japanese soldiers executed my grandfather (in front of my mother) probably clouds my perception of things....

JDub

Originally posted by Vendetta

Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.