War - Does the End Justify the Means?

Entropist wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

by definition, a crime is a violation of laws or mandates set by those who rule

actually by definition it's injurious to public welfare, morals, and interests to state and legally prohibited. so look towards international laws, and morality

in any event, i am not sure what point youre addressing but what i am interested in is this: can you offer a logically plausible alternatibe to the use of violence in the instance of hitler and ww2?

an alternative that does not result in his successfully exttermiating the entirety of the jewish culture to which he had access?

easily, diplomacy

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

i respect your desire for peace and your advocacy of diplomacy

i think that you are mistaken when you say "easy, diplomacy" as ifit really was easy or as if no one thought of diplomacy to begin with

you might research "appeasement"

that would give a starting point

but let me suggest that if you made a serious inquiry into the realities of nazi germany, and a serious inquiry into the psychology of violence and genocide, that you would concede, at the very least, that dealing with such things is NOT easy

even if there might be some theoretical potential solution which does not demand counter violence, the reality is that once someone js capable of and determined to commit these sorts of atrocities, it is extremely difficult to prevent them from doing so with anything less than force

it is a dillemma which has stumped people with a much more informed view of politics and society than either of us have got

and to dismiss the efforts of those who came before us with "easy, diplomacy" is, i think, unfair in the extreme

Adder wrote: Should the UN Declaration of Human Rights serve as the foundation of the concept of a just law, at least in regards to humans.... which makes me wonder how it might evolve to include animals (which gets tricky since we eat them!!) or droids/AI;
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

sustainability of the food chain. it's injustice to take more than needed

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

OB1Shinobi wrote:

i respect your desire for peace and your advocacy of diplomacy

i think that you are mistaken when you say "easy, diplomacy" as ifit really was easy or as if no one thought of diplomacy to begin with

you might research "appeasement"

that would give a starting point

but let me suggest that if you made a serious inquiry into the realities of nazi germany, and a serious inquiry into the psychology of violence and genocide, that you would concede, at the very least, that dealing with such things is NOT easy

first, thanks but such respect needs to be credited to diplomacy and peace because these concepts always existed. we just discover them, only able to accept for their behalf

maybe a misunderstanding needs clarification. the solution is easy, diplomacy. direction is paramount because slow or fast, we will get there. if erroneous or unknown direction, we go nowhere with the speed we travel.

even if there might be some theoretical potential solution which does not demand counter violence, the reality is that once someone js capable of and determined to commit these sorts of atrocities, it is extremely difficult to prevent them from doing so with anything less than force

yes and we must contain atrocities with force without being atrocities ourselves. this is how primitive martial arts was discovered

it is a dillemma which has stumped people with a much more informed view of politics and society than either of us have got

and to dismiss the efforts of those who came before us with "easy, diplomacy" is, i think, unfair in the extreme

please inform the means of the charge of unfairness, I must address if proven to be true.

the above is diplomacy, so is the wayward direction easy as said?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

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

Yes, I do. Based on his statement, he's a reenactor. Secondly, It's not my place to 'allow' for anything in this forum beyond basic civility and respect.

Entropist wrote: 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

Then I concede to your experience, and must admit that I am troubled over how something so obvious to you hasn't been discernable by countless generations of us murdering butchers. I sit here ready to learn from you, and feel that if the world does not adopt your wisdom wholesale sometime over the course of your life, we will have missed the greatest opportunity for peace any of us are likely to ever see.

All that aside, one thing I'd like to caution everyone against is adopting a stance based on what it says about YOU. We all have to do the best we can within the bounds of reality - and because death and violence are the most severe application of ethics and morality, everyone likes to play the dilettante. Wishful statements like "war is unnecessary and unjustifiable" or "killing for any reason is wrong" reek of self-gratification. They help nothing and no one, except the image narrative the stater has made for him or herself. History and reality both disagree on all points. Unless you are willing to commit to turning those statements into reality, you're only passing judgment on and doing a disservice to those who do.

Diplomacy only works when everyone at that table is willing to concede part of the issue at hand, to defer to peace rather than allow thins to escalate to warfare and hostilities.

For example: When the first thing said at the table is "All Jews and Infidels have to die. Not Negotiable." That pretty much stops the negotiation process unless you are willing to allow that to happen.

The U.N. has some great ideas, but not every person/nation recognizes the U.N. as any authority. The laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement can great impede the prevention of more death.

Two examples: I have seen truck loads of food and medicine needed for people supplied by the U.N. forces. As soon as the U.N. delivers the supplies and leave. Warlords zoom in and round it all up and take it from those that needed it.

The other example: Stating officially in public so everyone is aware, that troops cannot stop and inspect a caravan coming from Pakistan into Afghan territory unless they see weapons. So we sit with our troops and watch terrorist caravans stroll right by waving at our troops, knowing there are weapons and explosives sitting in crates and under blankets and tarps "covered" so they cannot be stopped for inspection.

These are examples of people making decisions and guiding our defense forces who have no idea how warfare today is fought.

Many examples I can speak of from experience. Deadly Force was mentioned as never being needed. That cannot be further from, the truth. You cannot identify an enemy today because there are not easily identifiable "sides" Not everyone wears a uniform that lets you know they are the enemy.

Another example: A tactic used many times when I was over in the OIF/OEF. A child is told to put on a vest and walk to a highly populated area. If the child will not do it, the sister/brother/parent will be shot. Do it or else. If they choose to not do it, they are killed and the next child/parent is asked to do it. Rinse and repeat until you get someone to put the vest on.

Now flip the scenario. You are assigned Overwatch of a market square. You are on a rooftop with your rifle looking for things out of the ordinary. You see a child/parent with a suicide vest on walking towards a market full of people and your fellow military personnel or maybe relief workers/doctors. Do you feel deadly force should be used now? Do you shoot the child/parent and prevent the vest from killing and injuring all those people? Do you allow them to walk into the crowd and blow up?

There are some benefits from the last 15 years of war that has helped us to create some amazing advances in medical and prosthetic advancements that have been introduced into civilian EMT/medical life. We have so many Veterans with PTSD. This is why the military has started training us to not just be ready for combat but also trained to be a Drug/Alcohol Adviser/Councilor, a Family Advocate assisting families adjusting those coming home, Sexual Assault victim advocates and so many more good programs that have become part of our humanity.

As long as there are those who feel that "might makes right", who are willing to oppress others, there will be armed conflict and warfare. Hostile negotiation, armed conflict, is part of the diplomatic process, but if you are unable to defend your side of the negotiation table or are unwilling to back up your side of the table with the military muscle you bring to that table you will always lose to warfare. The person/people on the other side of the negotiation table need to know that you are willing to take the steps necessary to halt the oppressor or they will continue to conduct themselves without fear of retaliation.

This can be taken all the way back to school yard bullying. The bully will not stop until someone is willing to step up and stand strong against him/her and use force if necessary to encourage the bully to stop.

I'd say diplomacy exists as an option throughout the range of conflict levels, but as the level of violence increases the stakes increase, and the effectiveness of diplomacy decreases as a result.



A nation's military tends to build itself to succeed in as much of that as possible, to ensure security, but their intentions and all use of force should always be to drive events to the left. The problem is, when a nation/entity has that capacity it might be tempting to misuse it for other reasons.

Reacher wrote: Yes, I do. Based on his statement, he's a reenactor. Secondly, It's not my place to 'allow' for anything in this forum beyond basic civility and respect.

which means he engages in battles from history as a practice of battle experience.

Then I concede to your experience, and must admit that I am troubled over how something so obvious to you hasn't been discernable by countless generations of us murdering butchers. I sit here ready to learn from you, and feel that if the world does not adopt your wisdom wholesale sometime over the course of your life, we will have missed the greatest opportunity for peace any of us are likely to ever see.

war is a tool for coercion and profit, that by means of diplomacy would prevent control and profit. hence, why war has been constantly abused over diplomacy because instigators and supporters of war have an unjust cause to execute in hopes the ends justify the means - note relevance to topic.

All that aside, one thing I'd like to caution everyone against is adopting a stance based on what it says about YOU.

caution noted, and the stance adopted is the stance of reason. freedom to point out truth in a matter for justification is acceptable, would you agree?

strong minds discuss principles,
average minds discuss events,
weak minds discuss people.

Wishful statements like "war is unnecessary and unjustifiable" or "killing for any reason is wrong" reek of self-gratification. They help nothing and no one, except the image narrative the stater has made for him or herself.

I'm interested how this assertion could be defended. as far as the discussion on the ends justifying the means, reasoning has basis on principle

History and reality both disagree on all points.

refer to 2nd point

Unless you are willing to commit to turning those statements into reality, you're only passing judgment on and doing a disservice to those who do.

the fact that I do prepare diplomatic documents to demonstrate and defend where prejudice is suffered, what of it?

to begin discussing motivations of why supporters of war, or ends justifying the means from point 2, the question begs is there an alternative for them to fall back on?

difficulties to address issues wrote: 1. maybe violence is the only means to address and avoid the question put before them?
2. maybe there's great difficulty to address, confront, and question themselves?
3. maybe that has been their way of life all along?
4. maybe they need any form of self-justification to satisfy themselves, and avoid the truth and justice of the matter?

difficulties in capacity wrote: 5. maybe there's limited capacity to use alternative means?
6. maybe there's something holding them back to find alternative means?

something to benefit wrote: 7. maybe instigators and facilitators of war use the ends to justify the means because there's bounty to claim for inciting anger and hatred in their supporters?

these bounties are land, financial wealth, elimination of threats, resources, the list goes on.

these questions shine more light to the question. and dare a supporter of war, of ends justify the means, able to address these questions irrefutably.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

EDIT
nevermind

Karn wrote: Diplomacy only works when everyone at that table is willing to concede part of the issue at hand, to defer to peace rather than allow thins to escalate to warfare and hostilities.

nicely reasoned

Deadly Force was mentioned as never being needed. That cannot be further from, the truth. You cannot identify an enemy today because there are not easily identifiable "sides" Not everyone wears a uniform that lets you know they are the enemy.

simply disable the means to the outcome

There are some benefits from the last 15 years of war that has helped us to create some amazing advances in medical and prosthetic advancements that have been introduced into civilian EMT/medical life.

at what cost? sacrificing all those lives to have a war to provide prosthetics to the injured? we discover more amazing advances based on studies of nature, and enjoyment

We have so many Veterans with PTSD. This is why the military has started training us to not just be ready for combat but also trained to be a Drug/Alcohol Adviser/Councilor, a Family Advocate assisting families adjusting those coming home, Sexual Assault victim advocates and so many more good programs that have become part of our humanity.

or simply study philosophy

As long as there are those who feel that "might makes right", who are willing to oppress others, there will be armed conflict and warfare.

This can be taken all the way back to school yard bullying. The bully will not stop until someone is willing to step up and stand strong against him/her and use force if necessary to encourage the bully to stop.

exactly the problem, well identified. force is necessary, as long as a force less than the offending force is used to de-escalate the situation to allow diplomacy. the magnitude of force is overcome by the vector that which a corrective force is applied, and always much less.


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

I love golf!!! I approach it like I would long range shooting, except its also like artillery without the tube, and archery without the string :side:
I find it very spiritual... if you try not to kill the grass when you hit it, and connect to the wind through the tree's to calculate the stroke and ball flight. But I'm a bit weird like that :whistle: