Global Village :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For good-natured and mutually-respectful discussions of politics and current affairs. Soap-boxing and the promotion of extremist causes motivated by hate will not be tolerated by our moderators. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
This is actually a interesting question. What amount of noncombatant civillian is an acceptable amount in battle. Should you kill one combatant in order to get ten?twenty? A hundred? What is an acceptable ratio? That is a major problem with fire and forget weapons, and automatic weapons. The collateral damage caused by weapons of that nature result in alot of "innocent" lives being lost. To suggest that it is acceptable to kill those children for no better reason than because they are in the way is just saying end justifies means. So why stop there? If it is alright to kill three kids to get four people is also saying that killing three thousand is allright if you kill four thousand. So is it? It is a hard question to ask and comes down to the goal of the people running the war. If it is to bring freedom and democracy to a downtrodden people then no it is not alright. All you are doing is chopping down a tree to save a few limbs. If it is to gain control of oil then it is completely alright, because loss of human life is not important to that goal.
The killing of innocents because you are instructed to is not an excuse. First off, one of the first rules of being a soldier in the US Military is following Lawful Orders...big difference between doing as instructed and following lawful orders. It is your duty as a soldier to reject unlawful orders. As a country that follows the rules of combat according to the Geneva Convention, the USA is required to protect civillians, not kill them. Of course alot of people would argue, "well they aren't following the geneva convention, so we shouldn't have to". That arguement has no bearing on what the US does. Since we agreed to it, it means we should follow it to the letter, that is what should seperate us. If we don't want to follow it, we should withdraw from the Conventions. Anyhow... is a big mess, and something that will always be an eternal thing with war.



"A thing must be understood as certain and true in order to be known without any doubt. But for this reason, that finite knowledge had faults and defects in thy design, therefore hast thou been strangled in thine own doubts" (Paracelsus)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
War is Hell 191 SunSword 03-Jun-06 01:07
Re: War is Hell 115 Gengus 03-Jun-06 03:24
Re: War is Hell 89 RaVaN 03-Jun-06 07:07
Re: War is Hell 127 IanG 03-Jun-06 08:08
Re: War is Hell 114 RaVaN 03-Jun-06 10:15
Re: War is Hell 120 PriorityRed 03-Jun-06 05:08
Re: War is Hell 81 SunSword 03-Jun-06 12:24
Re: War is Hell 92 PriorityRed 03-Jun-06 16:01
Re: War is Hell 104 SunSword 04-Jun-06 01:47
Re: Outcomes 113 Thunderbird 03-Jun-06 17:18
Re: Outcomes 106 Jergat 03-Jun-06 17:47
Re: Outcomes 134 Thunderbird 03-Jun-06 19:24
Kill Gene 90 Citizen Attorney 03-Jun-06 19:34
Re: Kill Gene 84 PriorityRed 03-Jun-06 20:56
Nature/Nurture 102 SunSword 04-Jun-06 13:10
Re: Kill Gene 124 ladyswanca 04-Jun-06 16:34
Re: Kill Gene 102 RaVaN 04-Jun-06 23:52
Re: Kill Gene 106 Hoppy 05-Jun-06 04:05
Re: Kill Gene 100 ladyswanca 05-Jun-06 07:04
Re: Kill Gene 83 Farseeker 05-Jun-06 14:02
Re: Kill Gene 84 ladyswanca 05-Jun-06 16:13
Re: Kill Gene 109 Farseeker 05-Jun-06 16:32
Re: Kill Gene 116 ladyswanca 05-Jun-06 16:54
Re: Kill Gene 143 ladyswanca 05-Jun-06 16:59
Re: Kill Gene 82 Farseeker 05-Jun-06 17:29
Re: Kill Gene 79 Dave Light 06-Jun-06 12:04
Re: War is Hell 112 Hoppy 05-Jun-06 14:34
Re: War is Hell 61 RaVaN 05-Jun-06 23:40
Re: War is Hell 103 Hoppy 06-Jun-06 00:48
Re: War is Hell 106 RaVaN 06-Jun-06 05:03
Re: Headless Heroes 117 PriorityRed 05-Jun-06 23:51
Re: Headless Heroes 112 Hoppy 06-Jun-06 00:51
Re: War is Hell 92 phoboskitty 06-Jun-06 10:51
Re: War is Hell 130 phoboskitty 06-Jun-06 11:01
Re: War is Hell 157 Aarooga 06-Jun-06 13:13


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.