The Cellar - View Single Post

sexobon · 12-08-2012, 01:17 PM

Dani, all's fair in love and war. The morality of one is the morality of the other. The Laws of Land Warfare are not altruistic conventions between "civilized" nations, they're placebos for non-combatants in nations; or, other movements wealthy enough (including human resources) to have a subset of their population do their fighting for them. The primary objective is to keep those who can afford not to do the fighting themselves and their loved ones from being attacked. The secondary objective is to ease their consciences about having someone else do their dirty work for them. It only works in conflicts between the wealthy; unless, the disparity between wealthy and poor in a conflict is so great as to render a so called war nothing more than a police action.

When the survival of a nation or movement that can't afford the luxury of non-combatants is threatened, anything goes. It's not unlike embattled parents, who can't afford to go their separate ways, using their children against each other even to the point that a depressed child commits suicide; or, an angry child perpetrates violence on others. When the latter happens, we've authorized our police to use even deadly force if necessary to protect innocents which may include our own loved ones. Why would anyone consider not doing the same for soldiers, who are somebody's loved ones, fighting an opponent that will use any means available?

My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.

12-08-2012, 01:17 PM	#7
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Dani, all's fair in love and war. The morality of one is the morality of the other. The Laws of Land Warfare are not altruistic conventions between "civilized" nations, they're placebos for non-combatants in nations; or, other movements wealthy enough (including human resources) to have a subset of their population do their fighting for them. The primary objective is to keep those who can afford not to do the fighting themselves and their loved ones from being attacked. The secondary objective is to ease their consciences about having someone else do their dirty work for them. It only works in conflicts between the wealthy; unless, the disparity between wealthy and poor in a conflict is so great as to render a so called war nothing more than a police action. When the survival of a nation or movement that can't afford the luxury of non-combatants is threatened, anything goes. It's not unlike embattled parents, who can't afford to go their separate ways, using their children against each other even to the point that a depressed child commits suicide; or, an angry child perpetrates violence on others. When the latter happens, we've authorized our police to use even deadly force if necessary to protect innocents which may include our own loved ones. Why would anyone consider not doing the same for soldiers, who are somebody's loved ones, fighting an opponent that will use any means available? My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.