War - Does the End Justify the Means?

Reacher has explained it far better than I could!

I consider the rationale and thought process in circumstances where ive had to chose between violence and non violence a rather personal thing and not something im interested in offering for public discussion, but I will say that in each circumstances it was the option that would ensure either my survival, the protection of others or the fastest way to end or prevent further conflict.

Violence is not the first choice, because that is the philosophy we practice, but when its the appropriate choice in a set of circumstances, I do not hesitate.

I love the thread and if there were a thread vote mine would go to no. Most I think would concur.

I have been very hesitant to add to this discussion. I am a warrior, been trained and honed my whole life to defend and serve those who are not able to do so for themselves. From martial arts training when I was very young to joining the military as soon as I was able I have spent my life in military and law enforcement defending and serving others. Remember that many military missions are humanitarian in nature, and not always about warfare.

I have a lot of experiences I could share. Some decisions that are made in war are horrific. We have gotten better at minimizing casualties in the last 20 years. We are more surgical in our tactics, we no longer carpet bomb cities, we drop one bomb on one target, minimizing collateral damage. This was not always the case.

War is the last step in a strategic plan. Diplomacy is a the first step, however, the diplomacy failure in the "Middle East" stems from cultural and belief system differences that will not be compromised.

If a compromise cannot be met usually trade and economic sanctions are usually imposed to put pressure to encourage a diplomatic resolution or return to diplomacy for a negotiated resolution. Unfortunately this usually ends with the people in power hoarding and confiscating needed supplies from the general populous and holding out, causing mass exodus/refugee issues.

If all of this fails, then there is the "threat" of armed conflict. First think to remember a threat of violence has to be serious, and believable. You have to have the ability to carry out the threat and they have to believe that you are willing to go to that extreme to force the outcome desired.

We spent the last decade and a half training Iraq to defend itself, and the soldiers were/are not willing to stand to defend their country. All the military/martial training in the world will not help you if you are not willing to stand and defend your self/home/country.

There are many military here at TOTJO. I still am not sure why, but we attract military minded people. I think it is because we are the sheepdogs. We serve to protect and defend those who are unable or unwilling to do so. I am not a pacifist by any means. I run towards the explosions and bullets to stop the situation and assist those in need, I do not run away from it or cower and hide from it.

As has been said before, every military person is trained to follow Lawful Orders. We do not mindlessly/blindly follow orders. We follow a code of ethics that is drilled into us. If the action goes against your ethics, your morals then you do not do it.

The question in this thread is, does the end justify the means? The only honest answer I can give you is a return question Can you live with the actions or in-action you took? Do you believe strongly enough in the reason for armed conflict? The answer is truly personal and only the self can answer it.

I was in the Army. I did not deploy but I did have friends who did. We all are in agreement Isis needs to be stopped. The Muslim religion is very controversial. In the Middle East you always see non radilized Muslims killing people for offending Muhammed and women who do not want to be restricted to what they can do. I just saw on Facebook a women was beaten by Muslim men because she was a female doctor. You have Muslims who say it is a religion of peace but I see the opposite. It comes down to peace we have to learn to respect people and not use religion in the name of violence. Peace can only begin if the Heart accepts love.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

CruzJ wrote: I just saw on Facebook a women was beaten by Muslim men because she was a female doctor. You have Muslims who say it is a religion of peace but I see the opposite.

As someone who's sister follows Islam, I had would have to disagree with you on this. Islam is definitely a religion that preaches peace. Or at the very least, does not promote violence any more so than the other 'major' religions. Have you read the bible?

I would say that the incident you refer to stems both from the individuals in power in those countries corrupting the religion to suit their interests and also down to the fact that those men believe that to be acceptable behaviour based on the values used to raise them. Much like how we believe it is wrong based on the values used to raise us.

Though I fear I may be getting off topic on my own thread....

CruzJ wrote: I was in the Army. I did not deploy but I did have friends who did. We all are in agreement Isis needs to be stopped. The Muslim religion is very controversial. In the Middle East you always see non radilized Muslims killing people for offending Muhammed and women who do not want to be restricted to what they can do. I just saw on Facebook a women was beaten by Muslim men because she was a female doctor. You have Muslims who say it is a religion of peace but I see the opposite. It comes down to peace we have to learn to respect people and not use religion in the name of violence. Peace can only begin if the Heart accepts love.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Two things for you, ISIS is the terrorist group, Isis is the Egyptian goddess of health, marriage, and wisdom...lets not stop her. I like her.

Also, ISIS itself is an extremist group. Muslims in general are no different as a group of people than Christians (for example). Don't judge a group based off the actions of a few.

Walkaboutman wrote:

Being a medieval Reenactor, I have had the opportunity to be engaged in many battles.

Reacher wrote:

I'm glad you gained insight during the reenactment, but none are based on the the qualifier of having engaged in battle.

do you know what practice walkaboutman does? he engages in battle. at least allow prudence here

Entropist wrote:

some people strike out of instinct, people like myself restrain and constrain to assess out of instinct before deciding.

Reacher wrote:

Have you ever had to weigh the decision to exercise restraint during a deadly force encounter?

Have you ever been asked to weigh the decision to use deadly force or not as part of a planned, intended event?

Are you a member of a profession where the use/withholding of deadly force is within the purview of your job description?

I look forward to learning about the conclusions you've drawn from experience.

yes, in self defence situations, and deadly force is obviously unneeded. intended events to use deadly force = attempted murder. death resulting from intended events is murder


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Brenna wrote:

Reacher has explained it far better than I could!

well you can wait for others to speak on your behalf but that's not your experience or rationale

Brenna wrote:

the option that would ensure either my survival, the protection of others or the fastest way to end or prevent further conflict.

fastest doesn't mean most justified, only means within capability

Brenna wrote:

Violence is not the first choice, because that is the philosophy we practice, but when its the appropriate choice in a set of circumstances, I do not hesitate.

violence is never appropriate, but I'd like to gauge where you assume violence is appropriate

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

I do pass judgement based on a few people. There is Muslims that do good and do not cause violence. As well these extremists would even use children to blow troops up. I simply say peace needs to be obtained. I do believe in violence. However violence and war is two different things. War today is politically motivated. However sometimes the end does justify things. A pacifist can say he is peaceful but even they can resort to war/violence measures to protect there Family. Robin Hood stole from the rich to feed the poor was this wrong. I do like violence but I will do what it takes to ensure peace.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I do not pass judgement based on few - correcting a sentence

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk