A serious question

[ERut]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You can always once you have accomplished your goal, shape the ideas of the populace on what you have accompished from it.

Even if you always could, that doesn't mean the end justifies the means in any situation.

[Willystyle21]

Ah hell.................

Look what I started. I was using the situation in Iraq as means of convaying a point. Didn't mean to start the whole conversation (or most of it) about Iraq. However I do believe in certain instances the ends do justify the means. Of course my being in the military and growing up in the south have givin me a different perspective on life than most in our world have. On a side note funny as hell how alot of people in Iraq are protesting our being there huh?

And DJ it's "in the end" by linkyn park. The topic just kinda popped back in my head when I heard the song.

And breaking peoples fingers so they can no longer leave annoying post's is not too terribla a thing. Demo pick your hammer back up and think about the part in Payback when Mel Gibson is strapped to the chair. Hurts thinking about it.

[Zumina]

Re: A serious question

Originally posted by Willystyle21
I believe he did a good thing by gettin Saddam out of power in Iraq.

and by good you mean a total collapse of their economy, the emergence of several new militant factions, political unrest, and a host of other repercussions? Then again, we did get those weapons of mass distruction, didn't we?

[Willystyle21]

uh yeah

Did we find the weapons yet? Well not from what we have heard on the news no. However did you see how we have found the 15 or so mig's buried in the sand less than 25 feet from one of the foward deployed camps in Iraq? Or did you hear about how we have found so many of the complexes and mobile units that made and deployed these said bioweapons? How big in square miles is Iraq anyhow? It's 171,599 square miles by the way. Do you have any idea how much or that can be used to bury something not to mention that reports has found a smugglers trail to Jordan. I'll bet money Saddam has been sending any number of "weapons" ( or anything else he was not suppose to have by the UN charter) into the desert to be buried or into a few of his neighboring countries.

No war is not the answer to the problem. But it WAS the best answer for the problem that was Saddam.Every educated person in the world knows that without a shadow of a doubt that if you attack america in a full on "military" attack ( not 9-11) that you will lose and you will lose badly. Look at history. America has NEVER lost a war. Vietnam was a joke, couldn't do what the top officials wanted because of the press and all of the fallout with anti war mongers that would have taken place. Put it this way did we really need another Hitler running around when we should learn from the mistakes of the past. There will always be war. It is man's blood. It is in his heart and mind to do what is right. How do you weigh human life one dies so that a hundred may live, hell yeah I will sacrifice my self for the good of humankind. We need to learn from what we have seen from years past and use this knowledge to fight for the future. In this I say yes the ends justify the means.

[Albinonewt]

Re: Re: A serious question

Originally posted by Zumina


and by good you mean a total collapse of their economy, the emergence of several new militant factions, political unrest, and a host of other repercussions? Then again, we did get those weapons of mass distruction, didn't we?

Collapse of their economy?

They didn't have one before.

The militant factions didn't exist because he killed everyone that didn't tow the line. That's way there are tens of thousands of dead people in mass graves, and we keep finding more

Political unrest? Where do you think it comes from? From the decades of oppression or being freed?

And I'm betting we did get the WMD and we're holding onto the list until it's complete. I may not be right, but I think what they're doing is just collecting all the evidence to release at once. Releasing news of a few canisters of this one week and a few shells of this the next would have a reduced affect because it's spread out. I think they're preparing a massive presentation where they present dozens, if not hundreds, of isolated incidents that when piled up is a huge deal

I can't promise that'll happen, but I think it will. In the next few weeks or months we'll see if I'm right. Now would be a good time to do it, since we're appealing the UN now would be a perfect time to drop the "bomb" as it were.

But, I might be wrong about that, we'll see.

[Miscue]

WMD found or not found... who cares. That's not the point.

http://www.etsell.com/kvi.htm

[Willystyle21]

Hell yeah

Very nice Miscue, very nice indeed. I had a good laugh at that. Now back to my original question, In your own opinion, without refering to this insue in Iraq, do you think the ends justify the means?

[Konigballer]

I think the phrase "do the ends justify the means" implies different things and has different conotations for every person, religeon, country or any nkind of organization you can think of in any number of situations.

For some, realistically a VERY small few, life is only black and white. They will not set aside their honor, morality, principles, relationships, financial means, or their lives to get from point A to B ,in whatever situation they are in. If getting there means sacraficing any of these things to accomplish their goal then "the ends DONT justify the means".

For the most people, the world is GRAY...

For me, if I want to accomplish my goals I am prepared to enter into that gray area and do what I have too to "get the job done" and accomplish those goals. In that sense, for me, "the ends DO justify the means", as long as my sacrafice or cost was worth the reward. But there is a limit for me and for everyone. In some situations, the sacrafice I might have to make to win or suceed is to great. In that case, "the ends DONT justify the means".

Individuals and the societies they make up are inherently flexible when rationalizing "do the ends justify the means".

I'll use history as an example. In WW1, the United States military had around 115,000 soldiers killed. Our goal was the defeat of Imperial Germany and her allies, and we achieved that goal. For the government, the ends did justify the means in that conflict.

However, decades later durring the failed humanitarian effort in Somalia, the US military had 43 people killed in combat from 92-94. Our goal there, humanitarian in purpose but conducted militarily, was deemed not worth the expendeture of lives it would have eventually cost to accomplish that mission. In that scenario, for the government the ends did not justify the means.

It changes from situation to situation. The conflict in Iraq has yet to be decided so we can only speculate. So far the casualties we've taken have been deemed worth it to eventually acomplish the administration's goal. As of today, the government thinks that "the ends justify the means" in Iraq. But say, somehow in the coming months, our death toll hit one thousand instead of the current 287. I'd be willing to bet that, for americans, "the ends would NOT justify the means" and our ultimate goal would prove to be to great a cost.

It just depends on the situation.