War - Does the End Justify the Means?

Seumic wrote: Just to point out, that the JO believes :

We can all learn and perhaps I should not be so quick to dismiss people who have these ideas contrary to Jediism.

I agree, perhaps you need to take a step back if you believe you have the authority to determine who belongs here or not.

I would like to clear up a few points I saw in here.

-Collateral Damage (to include civilian lives and structures) ARE taken into consideration by the US. All military personnel receive YEARLY LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) training which constantly repeats we are responsible at our level for these things. Yes, it happens, and it sucks. But it's far from an afterthought.

-There are no drones being flown in combat zones. They are used for aerial target practice and very rarely anymore. Drones do not carry weapons so cannot kill civis unless they crash for some reason. What you may be thinking of are RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) we have a few of those that are armed but I promise there's a human pulling that trigger, it's not a computer or some AI deciding this like the term 'drone' tends to convey. The only major difference between a Predator and an F16 is where the pilot is sitting.

-Jedi as a whole are not pacifists. I am a Jedi, I am not a pacifist. I don't think violence of any kind is the first resort BUT I will if I feel I need to.

-MOST people aren't innocent. But in combat specifically, the US military have a VERY clear definition of lawful targets. Again, collateral damage happens, and I don't have a reference to back this, but I'd say most people who are killed by US troops, fit the definition of a lawful target.

Onto the main point: War is nasty. It's bloody, it rips families apart. It's stressful, it's dusty, it's sweaty. At least in my experience. And I have a job that keeps me behind the wire. I don't think anybody with any sense actually thinks you can 'win' a war. I would much rather have things taken care of off the battle field. I wouldn't say the end justifies the means, I don't think there's much in the way of justice in war. But there are worse things than war.

Kohadre wrote:

Seumic wrote: Just to point out, that the JO believes :

We can all learn and perhaps I should not be so quick to dismiss people who have these ideas contrary to Jediism.

I agree, perhaps you need to take a step back if you believe you have the authority to determine who belongs here or not.

I never said I had authority to do anything. I never said people have to leave either. I simply provided a suggestion that people check their beliefs to see if they believe in the same things and that they should leave. I realized that was incorrect to say and that I should give those individuals a chance to learn.

I think taking ownership of my actions is also something one should not be chastising me about. I could have easily erased it, but I chose to leave it there. I made a mistake and owned up to it.

I feel your comment here is rude and putting salt into the wound. I obviously realized what I said was wrong.

Seumic wrote: I feel your comment here is rude and putting salt into the wound. I obvious realized what I said was wrong.

I felt your comment was rude and unnecessary as well.

You can't erase your own posts, that is up for a moderator to decide. Sure you owned up to your mistake, I don't know why you think that gives you immunity from further commentary on your choice of message however.

If I'm ruffling your feathers, try and think of why that might be.

Kohadre wrote:

Seumic wrote: I feel your comment here is rude and putting salt into the wound. I obvious realized what I said was wrong.

I felt your comment was rude and unnecessary as well.

You can't erase your own posts, that is up for a moderator to decide. Sure you owned up to your mistake, I don't know why you think that gives you immunity from further commentary on your choice of message however.

If I'm ruffling your feathers, try and think of why that might be.

I meant erase that comment, not the whole post.

Maybe you are right. You can choose to write whatever you want and respond to my choice of message. It is your choice to look past someone's mistake and focus on the part that was rude and unnecessary.

It is my choice to let your further comment bug me.

If someone has the opportunity to edit it, then they had the opportunity to edit out parts of the message by deleting words or sentences.... but did someone say Moderator!?

If anyone has complaints feel free to PM me or any of the other Moderators. Remember also some conversations can be better handled by PM, as the idea I think is to try and keep discussion related to the subject topic or progression of the subject topic.

But I note a bit 'I feel' going on. Feeling is good but we cannot be a slave to it either IMO. One of the good things about the internet is you can choose to read into something, even if you know its not what the person meant. But, lol, I dunno why I keep remembering the movies lately.. must be all the hoopla over the new release, but what's the saying trust your feelings, but do what you think is 'right'. So if someone says something you feel is bad, its always an option to try and look for ways to interpret it as good.... often its not worth the bother following the cyclical blame game of competing values in something as multifaceted as communication. #randomthoughts #whatisrightanyway

In the natural world animals kill, rape, murder and war with each other. They do so over territory, breeding rights, pecking order, power, resources and all other manner of physical needs. We are also part of this natural world. Man uses violence against man for the same ends. Without the use of lethal force our justice system is nothing more than an idea. Politics and diplomacy? They are empty words without the threat of action.

Death by a bullet or death by economic sanction? I see no difference in means only the ends. Thus only the ends is of importance and the means justified by it.

The catch is that for your means to be justified your ends must be justified. Not the end you desire, or the one you think will happen but the ends that actually result from your means. They must all must all be known and just. If history shows us one thing it is that some means never produce ends that are justifiable. Thus some means are never just.

rationalised ideas regardless of which facet of a discussion we're on is important. for someone yet to rationalise that far, but relates to that corresponding part of the journey of reason, can use that rationale as a guide. that person may expand that rationale, and serve as a guide themselves to others. so there's a real appreciation for concise and succinct writers lol

we should be too big to take offense as much as we should be too noble to give offense

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

same principles apply to war too : )

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

War is a tricky subject, both in referring to wars of the past, and conflicts of the present. While most agree that war is bad, some would argue that some of the ends justified the means of the conflict. I am no expert on this, but I think about these conflicts every day, and what purpose they serve.

Take, for instance, World War II. For many nations, fighting the Axis was a means of preventing the aggressive takeover of Nazi Germany and their allies. The war was started by Germany, and the force of which they attempted to conquer Europe was so intense that some would say negotiation and diplomacy were out of the question. As it stands now, we will never know the outcome of this conflict if we had gone a different path.

For some others, like my family, this war was more personal. The looming threat of the Holocaust happening during this crusade led my family, and others like them, to live in fear. Fear for their loved ones in Germany and the conquered nations. Fear for themselves, that if we allowed this conquest to go one, one day they too would be interned and killed like the rest of the victims. From that point of view, war was justifiable. In fact, war was the only way to proceed. In their minds, there was no time to talk and negotiate when innocent lives were on the line. That was their reality, and thankfully, here in most developed nations, we don't have to worry about that fear.

So why, in this day and age, do we still war? In this era of technological boom, we have the capability of talking at will with people all over the world. Perhaps the failing is in the way we use this technology? The US had used this technology to incite fear into the hearts of the people in many a developing country, I would argue that we are at least partly responsible for the groups that have sprang up, with anti-Western sentiment and very militaristic ideals. With the world's eyes on us, we have shown them since World War II that arming yourselves, and developing the best in military technology, is the means to an end. By "speaking softly but carrying a big stick", we have inspired others to do the same thing.

With all this in mind, debating the use of war is a conversation that will go on for many generations. There are some, like my family, who will claim that war is needed when lives are on the line. They will rally the troops when their people are being slaughtered. There are those who come from "less powerful" nations who would argue that war is necessary to free themselves from "more powerful" nations, and that the only answer to violence is violence. Finally, there are those like us, who would argue that there is no purpose for war. All it does is ruins lives, cause pain and misery in this already falling apart world, and tear us apart as a species. But that can be considered flawed as well. By viewing ourselves as protectors, those who support war would call us out as hypocrites, labeling our inaction and unwillingness to fight as a sign that we do not care about the people we have sworn to treat as our family. Is that right or wrong?

I am by no means a supporter of war. I find the notion that we have to go in guns blazing into any conflict of ideology or way of life a failure of the diplomatic machine. We are people, and we are flawed, and those flaws lead to these failings that lead us into armed responses.

Ultimately, war will be seen as a viable option, so long as we refuse to acknowledge the flaws of ourselves, and refuse to come together as one people and fix these flaws.