Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Absurd? I wonder where I got the idea from.

First of all, you just used an appeal to authority. You assume that I agree with every statement made by Ayn Rand. As I have repeatedly said, I am not an Objectivist. In this case, I don't agree, and I find the idea of collective condemnation to be totally opposed to the other principle's of Ayn Rand's philosophy. An innocent cannot "deserve" the same punishment as the guilty, regardless of whether or not it is just to consider them collateral damage, which it most certainly is. Whatever true innocents died in Hiroshima did not deserve to be vaporized. But the blood of the innocent was on the hands of the Japanese government.

Right. As in My Lai.

I think it will take a very huge philosophical and cultural transformation in America and the world before people can understand that this whole thing of putting soldiers in deep trouble for killing someone in an enemy territory in war time is very wrong. Soldiers should not be put under such pressure of thinking about so many things when they are in a war zone. They are there to win the war, and this includes breaking the spirits of the enemy soldiers and their leaders. At My Lai, American soldiers killed their wives and children: that sounds like a great tactic, militarily speaking. No wonder Nixon pardoned some of the biggest "culprits".

So, it's perfectly okay for soldiers to play target practice with people who are minding their own business, simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of an enemy country?

It would if technology was available that could discriminate, wouldln't it?

I think we've had this debate before. (I remember that debate clearly, because Blackdiamond was on the other side of it) Hiroshima was targeted because it was BOTH a military and civilian population center. That is, we went out of our way to find a double target. We could have "helped it". We didn't, consciously.

The technology does exist in some combat situations. The soldiers in My Lai possessed firearms which can be used to pick off individuals or mow down enemy masses. If you're dealing with a single enemy standing guard, pick him off. In cases where civilians are interspersed with the enemy, I say mow them all down, a la Samuel L. Jackson in Rules of Engagement. But if you're in an impoverished village containing nothing but civilians who are not in any way hindering your mission? If you kill them, knowing that they present no threat to you, you have committed an act of murder, and you should be Court Martialed and executed for doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 903
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Are you asking for an exhaustive list, or a general characterization? I assume you know what "threat" means; then threatening the US is making a threat against the US (in part or in whole). For exampl

I'm aware of most of those imaginary claims you consider "knowledge of the situation". I just happen to know they're not real, so I don't consider them when passing judgement on Iran.

If this was true it would be an easy matter to overthrow oppressive states. This won't work because you have reversed cause and effect. Philosophy is what drives history. It is the funda

David,

I understand your sentiment, and I agree with it in a very qualified sense. It can hinder the war effort (and hence be immoral) to specifically target toddlers and puppies in small border towns which do not sympathize with the enemy. If we did such a thing, we would be encouraging the enemy to fight to the last man. We would convince them that their fate would be even worse than destruction if they were defeated. They would never surrender.

However, it is important to note that the toddler/puppy slaughter tactic is irrational and immoral because it hinders the war effort of the defending country, not because of any rights violation on the part of the defending nation's soldiers. An enemy aggressor forfeits the rights of its citizens by waging war against a free nation. We have no obligation to protect any of their civilians, no matter their degree of involvement in the war effort. The only rational measure is: What is the most effective way to end the conflict as quickly and permanently as possible? This question is best answered by an expert in military tactics.

For this reason, it can be very dangerous to presume what constitutes "going out of our way to discriminately target people who are uninvolved." If this statement truly applies to a certain group or region of the company (as with the Kurds in Iraq), and you're dealing with a friendly civilian population, then I totally agree with you: attacking them would be the height of immorality and stupidity. We would be lengthening the war. However, I think we should leave it to military leaders to make such decisions.

--Dan Edge

The part in bold represents what I think is an underlying error in this theory of war. Namely, that any person's rights can be forfeited by anyone other than himself. No one can forfeit my rights unless I, personally, commit an act of immorality that warrants their forfeit. The worst that an enemy country can do is to forfeit the free country's obligation to avoid killing innocents.

Please note, I have never suggested that we have a moral obligation to avoid killing innocents. I have made quite plain that it is acceptable for them to be killed as collateral damage. I have also made plain that I don't think "innocent" automatically applies to all civilians. What I am talking about is the knowledgeable, discriminate killing of people who are not hindering your war effort, a la My Lai. It is evil for reasons that are related, not only to whether or not it is tactically or strategically wise, but also because it violates the rights of people who did nothing to deserve such treatment.

Kendall,

Aren't you guys supposed to be a bunch of Randroid disciples? You're not conforming to the stereotype! I order you to email Snerd immediately and await further instructions.

--Dan Edge, Corporal in the Objectivism Online Army

I'm not saying that it is, but I really hope this is not aimed at me. I do frequently point out that I cannot be swayed by appeals to Ayn Rand's authority, but I can count on about 2 fingers the number of times I have actually accused fellow posters of being Randians (my perjorative term for people who treat Objectivism as a dogmatic religion).

Actually, I am always amazed at the core group. Generally very respectful, but not always a "united front". In one thread you and I may disagree (always strenuously ;)) in another we agree completely. Sophia, David, Jenni, Snerd, Inspector, Seeker, Moose, etc. It's never a sure bet that we'll weigh in the same on any given topic.

This is actually what keeps me coming back. If I agreed with everything that people on here said, it'd be a pretty boring messageboard for me to visit. And thanks for considering me part of "the core group." :)

Edited by Moose
Link to post
Share on other sites
And thanks for considering me part of "the core group." :)

You're welcome. And it's not an exhaustive list, so hopefully no one is hurt if I forgot to list them. There are many more!

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it's perfectly okay for soldiers to play target practice with people who are minding their own business, simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of an enemy country?

The technology does exist in some combat situations. The soldiers in My Lai possessed firearms which can be used to pick off individuals or mow down enemy masses. If you're dealing with a single enemy standing guard, pick him off. In cases where civilians are interspersed with the enemy, I say mow them all down, a la Samuel L. Jackson in Rules of Engagement. But if you're in an impoverished village containing nothing but civilians who are not in any way hindering your mission? If you kill them, knowing that they present no threat to you, you have committed an act of murder, and you should be Court Martialed and executed for doing so.

I did address this in the previous debate:

A soldier or officer of a defending nation can commit a crime if he violates the objectively communicated policies and tactics of a properly defending army, but this is subject to military justice, again prosecuted at the national level. A soldier who follows policy and kills civilians, even if by accident does NOT commit a crime (e.g. Haditha was not a crime). A defending govt prosecuting a war of self defense as a matter of definition, CANNOT commit war crimes. There is a reason that a code of military justice is specifically harsh. It is because a soldier in an army is given license to use deadly force, but for specific ends only. Independantly going outside of those ends, means he is abusing that license, and that is especially immoral.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The part in bold represents what I think is an underlying error in this theory of war. Namely, that any person's rights can be forfeited by anyone other than himself. No one can forfeit my rights unless I, personally, commit an act of immorality that warrants their forfeit. The worst that an enemy country can do is to forfeit the free country's obligation to avoid killing innocents.

I also tried to address this in the previous to Sophia, specifically that at a minimum an "innocent" either:

a. if he believes his government is right, is committing at mininmum a form of evasion for which he is responsible (and thus does in a way forfeit his rights) OR

b. knows his country is wrong, and in which case wants the attacking army to defeat his government, rationally, even if it means he is killed in the process.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry121862

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Edge

An enemy aggressor forfeits the rights of its citizens by waging war against a free nation.

The part in bold represents what I think is an underlying error in this theory of war. Namely, that any person's rights can be forfeited by anyone other than himself. No one can forfeit my rights unless I, personally, commit an act of immorality that warrants their forfeit. The worst than an enemy country can do is to forfeit the free country's obligation to avoid killing innocents.

I, at one time shared your opinion. What finally convinced me I was wrong, was the realization that rights are not natural existents. They are a description of a contract between a particular government and particular people living under it. They do not apply to anyone living outside of that country. There is no obligation on the part of a free country to protect the rights of people everywhere. Its proper obligation is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its residents.

If another government and the people living under it which support it (voluntarily or otherwise) come into conflict with the rights of its own citizens, then it must act to secure those rights without regard to the welfare of those in the opposing country. Whether or not the best way to secure its residents rights includes killing "babies and puppies" is a tactical and political matter and not a philosophic one.

People are not born with rights, although it seems like it when living in a somewhat free country. Also the wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to this mistaken notion. That we are born with these "unalienable" rights which were endowed by a creator, I believe is incorrect for two reasons. One, obviously, is that there is no creator or divine plan. Second, unalienable means "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred"-Black's Law Dictionary. Obviously they can be sold and transferred and are all of the time. The proper view should be that a government instituted by a group of people to protect those rights is not granted the authority to take those rights away from those people. They can have no contract with people over whom they have no jurisdiction.

At any rate, sorting this out helped me see why blowing up kittens was a good thing....wait...actually, I've always thought that....but it did help to see why it is justifiable to also blow up puppies and babies on occasion. :)

edit:Before I start getting hate mail from cat lovers, I want to clarify that, while I do prefer dogs to cats, I have never actually blown up kittens nor do I advocate that except in circumstances of personal self-defense or protecting our national interests. <grin>

Edited by aequalsa
Link to post
Share on other sites
I did address this in the previous debate:

I agree that war crimes cannot be committed by accident, nor can they be committed under duress (i.e. official US policy). But surely you would not defend the practice of soldiers going into residential areas and shooting up cafes, just for kicks.

I also tried to address this in the previous to Sophia, specifically that at a minimum an "innocent" either:

a. if he believes his government is right, is committing at mininmum a form of evasion for which he is responsible (and thus does in a way forfeit his rights) OR

b. knows his country is wrong, and in which case wants the attacking army to defeat his government, rationally, even if it means he is killed in the process.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry121862

a. Granted, he is committing evasion, at the very least. It can be argued that these people help to prop up the government. So, no argument here.

b. There are many, many people like this. If they are killed by accident or collateral damage...that sucks, but it is not immoral. But it would be evil to use line him up against a wall and shoot him, knowing that he is truly innocent, simply because he is a citizen of an evil country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I, at one time shared your opinion. What finally convinced me I was wrong, was the realization that rights are not natural existents. They are a description of a contract between a particular government and particular people living under it.

Rights exist independently of government. Saying otherwise flies in the face of Objectivism, not to mention the US Constitution.

They do not apply to anyone living outside of that country. There is no obligation on the part of a free country to protect the rights of people everywhere. Its proper obligation is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its residents.

I agree that there is no obligation for us to protect the rights of the civilians of an enemy country. But I think we are obligated not to kill them for no good reason.

If another government and the people living under it which support it (voluntarily or otherwise) come into conflict with the rights of its own citizens, then it must act to secure those rights without regard to the welfare of those in the opposing country. Whether or not the best way to secure its residents rights includes killing "babies and puppies" is a tactical and political matter and not a philosophic one.

People are not born with rights, although it seems like it when living in a somewhat free country. Also the wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to this mistaken notion. That we are born with these "unalienable" rights which were endowed by a creator, I believe is incorrect for two reasons. One, obviously, is that there is no creator or divine plan. Second, unalienable means "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred"-Black's Law Dictionary. Obviously they can be sold and transferred and are all of the time. The proper view should be that a government instituted by a group of people to protect those rights is not granted the authority to take those rights away from those people. They can have no contract with people over whom they have no jurisdiction.

I don't see how this can possibly be reconciled with any sense of individualism. Rights cannot be "sold or transferred." A government cannot take away your rights. The most it can do is to choose not to respect them. All people on earth have the same rights, regardless of their form of government, until they, themselves, commit an act that renders them forfeit.

At any rate, sorting this out helped me see why blowing up kittens was a good thing....wait...actually, I've always thought that....but it did help to see why it is justifiable to also blow up puppies and babies on occasion. ;)

In certain circumstances, I agree. But not just for the hell of it.

edit:Before I start getting hate mail from cat lovers, I want to clarify that, while I do prefer dogs to cats, I have never actually blown up kittens nor do I advocate that except in circumstances of personal self-defense or protecting our national interests. <grin>

You stay the hell away from my kitties... :)

Edited by Moose
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rights exist independently of government. Saying otherwise flies in the face of Objectivism, not to mention the US Constitution.

"Flies in the face of objectivism"? I'm in serious trouble if you're telling me that, moose. :) What I mean to say is, that rights do not exist in nature. It takes a certain level of philosophic advancement before the notion can be understood and implemented. What is the purpose of differentiating between not respecting a right and taking it away. If they can take my property at will, I have no property rights. I gather what you mean by right is that they cannot justifiably take away the rights of its residents. Not that they literally cannot. Is that correct? If so, then I agree.

I agree that there is no obligation for us to protect the rights of the civilians of an enemy country. But I think we are obligated not to kill them for no good reason.

Well sure. I doubt anyone would recommend killing people for fun with nothing to be gained. Not killing them, however, is a matter of tactics. "In what way will blowing up this fishing village give us an advantage?" The rights of the people living there do not exist from the point of view of the government. They have no obligation to protect or acknowledge those "rights". Especially when the interests of the villagers are at odds with its own.

I don't see how this can possibly be reconciled with any sense of individualism. Rights cannot be "sold or transferred." A government cannot take away your rights. The most it can do is to choose not to respect them. All people on earth have the same rights, regardless of their form of government, until they, themselves, commit an act that renders them forfeit.

In certain circumstances, I agree. But not just for the hell of it.

I agree that all people should have rights, but not that they do. As a matter of practical implementation, they must be understood and protected by the majority of people in a country. If they are not, they do not exist. To say that all people have rights is like saying that all people are smart and pretty. Most people, in fact do not have them completely. I would suggest that we will all have rights when we all understand them and respect them in others. In the same way, kittens and puppies will have rights when they can understand and respect them in others.

You stay the hell away from my kitties... ;)
Here kitty, kitty :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Flies in the face of objectivism"? I'm in serious trouble if you're telling me that, moose. :) What I mean to say is, that rights do not exist in nature. It takes a certain level of philosophic advancement before the notion can be understood and implemented. What is the purpose of differentiating between not respecting a right and taking it away. If they can take my property at will, I have no property rights. I gather what you mean by right is that they cannot justifiably take away the rights of its residents. Not that they literally cannot. Is that correct? If so, then I agree.

I agree...it seems that we're just using different language. I'm saying that, if a man kills you, he has not taken away your right to life...he has just chosen not to respect it.

Well sure. I doubt anyone would recommend killing people for fun with nothing to be gained. Not killing them, however, is a matter of tactics. "In what way will blowing up this fishing village give us an advantage?" The rights of the people living there do not exist from the point of view of the government. They have no obligation to protect or acknowledge those "rights". Especially when the interests of the villagers are at odds with its own.

But some people in this thread are recommending that very thing. Robert Kolker, for instance, has explicitly recommended genocide and the killing of all citizens of an enemy country that come into contact with our military.

You're right that it would not give us an advantage. But why is that the only reason that it is immoral? Why is it not also immoral because it violates that person's rights? If you are fighting an evil government that happens to violate their rights, and they are not hindering you, it seems that it would be immoral to kill them if, for no other reason, because you are further violating their right to life. This is in addition to whatever self-interest principles exist on the part of the free country.

I agree that all people should have rights, but not that they do. As a matter of practical implementation, they must be understood and protected by the majority of people in a country. If they are not, they do not exist. To say that all people have rights is like saying that all people are smart and pretty. Most people, in fact do not have them completely. I would suggest that we will all have rights when we all understand them and respect them in others. In the same way, kittens and puppies will have rights when they can understand and respect them in others.

Once again, I think my only disagreement here boils down to semantic differences.

Edited by Moose
Link to post
Share on other sites
What finally convinced me I was wrong, was the realization that rights are not natural existents. They are a description of a contract between a particular government and particular people living under it.

This is incorrect. A right is NOT a contract but a moral principle defining man's freedom of action in a social context (meaning more than one person) (see "Man's Rights" essay). Rights are derived from 1)conditional nature of life 2) man's capacity to reason and 3) man's free will - they are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival in a social context.

Man has rights always and everywhere (in a social context) - you neither gain new rights nor you loose them when you travel to different countries. Two people on an island would have rights. The contract with a government is a contract to protect man's rights (something man already has) - to protect the rights of people living under it. Protect means - to shield, to defend, to guard. But man has rights even if there is nobody to protect them but himself. Rights remain valid, even if unrecognized.

So when one is morally justified to kill an innocent (at any time - not only during a war) - it is when one is forced to choose between saving your own life and acting morally (not killing), meaning there is no other option, which is not ALWAYS the case. This scenario must be present for this to be an emergency situation, in which the violation of a right to life - is morally justifiable.

During the time of war there maybe many short range emergency situations of this kind and the whole war may become a BIG emergency situation (at which point using nuclear weapons would be moral and absolutely necessary) but war by default is not an emergency situation, in which morality does not apply.

There is no obligation on the part of a free country to protect the rights of people everywhere.

No obligation to protect or defend rights of people everywhere - that is correct - no contradiction with the above. It however is not equal to having a moral right to violate rights of people who are not citizens regardless of the circumstances of a war.

The rights of the people living there [another country] do not exist from the point of view of the government.

Incorrect. Rights are inalienable - man has them always, they exist always - in a social context.

They have no obligation to protect or acknowledge those "rights".

No obligation to protect - RIGHT but not acknowledging the existance of something which does exists is called evasion.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt anyone would recommend killing people for fun with nothing to be gained. Not killing them, however, is a matter of tactics. "In what way will blowing up this fishing village give us an advantage?"
And what rights do said fishermen have in protecting themselves against a foreign military that is trying to blow them up for tactical reasons?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree...it seems that we're just using different language. I'm saying that, if a man kills you, he has not taken away your right to life...he has just chosen not to respect it.

But some people in this thread are recommending that very thing. Robert Kolker, for instance, has explicitly recommended genocide and the killing of all citizens of an enemy country that come into contact with our military.

Ok...I'm clear.

You're right that it would not give us an advantage. But why is that the only reason that it is immoral? Why is it not also immoral because it violates that person's rights? If you are fighting an evil government that happens to violate their rights, and they are not hindering you, it seems that it would be immoral to kill them if, for no other reason, because you are further violating their right to life. This is in addition to whatever self-interest principles exist on the part of the free country.

Because the government of the free country is created to protect the rights of its own citizens. That collection of free individuals have the right to defend their rights which they believe to be endangered by the existence tyrannical government. The fact that it might contain innocent people is not the concern of the moral government acting in its own defense any more then innocent bystanders in the way of a criminal shooting at you, should be your concern. A group of individuals defending their own right to life need not consider possible innocents except as it pertains to the achievement of their own goals.

Something like this should not be treated lightly, of course, but I think it is theoretically possible that a circumstance could arise where complete or near genocide was required for victory. I don't know yet if I think that is the case with regard to Islam, but they are a devoted, fanatical group. When your enemy isn't another country so much as a set of beliefs the long term answer is to fight with ideas. But that takes a long time. Generations maybe. In the mean time I believe that western civilization is in very serious danger. So the response to any further terrorist activity ought to be severe.

Currently, some idiot straps a bomb to his a$$ and takes out 40 or 10,000 people and he's a hero. He will have killed infidels and the reprisals from the weak reason-based west will be laughable. We walk in, shoot a few people, and dump billions of our own money into their infrastructure. Our wars are an inconvenience, at best, and generally the best thing that can happen to a country. I think the correct approach to actually "shock and awe" these sorts of enemies is to bomb the living hell out of the entirety of the country from which the attackers came, destroying all of their western built infrastructure, sending them back, in the process, to the dark ages where their philosophy belongs.

Then refuse to trade with the country for 20 years. Cut them out of the world market. After that generation dies out, I bet the next would think long and hard about encouraging their sons to do that sort of thing again. If in the mean time, the people of that country keep launching terrorist attacks, make each antecedent bombing run worse by an order of magnitude, until they stop or there ain't any of them left. I don't know if genocide is the right word for that or not. I'd just call it protecting your own life and culture. The Islamic people in a country have to decide at some point that they don't want the proper results of their actions and when they do, their culture will change.

I know this, the longer they are protected from the consequences of their actions, the more guaranteed future attempts at terror will be.

So as I see it, we live in this strange world where western civilization wants to commit suicide and give its carcass to the neanderthals that want it destroyed in the name of a very mean-spirited, sort of Santa Claus, named Allah. I suggest that it would be a much better idea to send the neanderthals to their beloved Allah and carry on with advancing the world and bettering life for everyone who shares that more beneficial world view. Despite everything wrong with the west, there still seems to be some enlightenment left and I think that's worth any cost to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No obligation to protect or defend rights of people everywhere - that is correct - no contradiction with the above. It however is not equal to having a moral right to violate rights of people who are not citizens regardless of the circumstances of a war.

This is where I differ from you on this issue. I think there is a contradiction in that. If rights must always be acknowledged by a just government, then they would not be justified in killing innocents except in an immediate moment where they were at serious risk. It reduces war to a police like action. Fire only when fired upon and that sort of mentality. It isn't how wars are fought and based on this last one, creates a clear danger and disadvantage for our side.

And what rights do said fishermen have in protecting themselves against a foreign military that is trying to blow them up for tactical reasons?

I don't think I understand the correct meaning of your question. Would you rephrase it for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If rights must always be acknowledged by a just government, then they would not be justified in killing innocents except in an immediate moment where they were at serious risk.

Rights exist regardless if they are acknowledged by others or not.

It does not need to be an immediate moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incorrect. A right is NOT a contract but a moral principle defining man's freedom of action in a social context (meaning more than one person) (see "Man's Rights" essay). Rights are derived from 1)conditional nature of life 2) man's capacity to reason and 3) man's free will. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival in a social context.

I have read that essay, of course, and I think the differentiation here might be between unalienable and inalienable. The former referring to the moral principle and the latter to the practical implementation of that principle. Rands essay deals with the unalienable right. The ought of the issue. Why its in man's best interests.

My point in my above statements was to sort out the meaning because the term right is used very loosely. In pre-john locke days, we can say all men had rights in the same way that we can say that the second law of thermodynamics existed. But without the discovery or implementation of the idea, its existence is not really relevant. The same might be said of a group with no concept of right.

By way of example, a friend of mine who studied mandarin explained that the closest translation to "right" was "the power to make other people leave you alone" In correct obviously, but maybe related to china's lack of rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read that essay, of course, and I think the differentiation here might be between unalienable and inalienable. The former referring to the moral principle and the latter to the practical implementation of that principle. Rands essay deals with the unalienable right

No it is INalienable. It is explained in "Textbook of Americanism" pamphlet. pg. 12

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rights exist regardless if they are acknowledged by others or not.

It does not need to be an immediate moment.

Within your system, if soldiers are not at immediate risk, then how would they justify not choosing to respect the rights of people that may be innocent? If the current circumstance is not an emergency and all of war is not an emergency, generally, like you claim, then they seem stuck in a bit of a pickle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Within your system, if soldiers are not at immediate risk, then how would they justify not choosing to respect the rights of people that may be innocent? If the current circumstance is not an emergency and all of war is not an emergency, generally, like you claim, then they seem stuck in a bit of a pickle.

No, the criteria of "one must be forced to choose between either saving your own life and acting morally" does not imply in the immediate moment and it does not only mean individual soldiers in a moment of danger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But we here don't use terms loosely.

Well,no, sometimes we do. Communication can be tricky if slightly different defintions are attached to the same word in each persons mind. I was attempting to get a more clear picture of what moose meant, so as to respond more accurately.

No, the criteria of "one must be forced to choose between either saving your own life and acting morally" does not imply in the immediate moment and it does not only mean individual soldiers in a moment of danger.

Then I must have misunderstood your position. How broadly do you think that latitude of action which permits the killing of possible innocents, carries?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I must have misunderstood your position. How broadly do you think that latitude of action which permits the killing of possible innocents, carries?

In a war situation it goes beyond a single life (or a few) on either side but again there must be no other option (and I don't mean just in a situation when they are nuking us - that has never been disputed here) and yes it may mean killing masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...