3 ms·

It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous. But take any of the recent genocides (

by rob_lh 11y ago

It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous. But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed. A soldier hears about this in the news, prepares every day to stop large forces like that, and instead is being asked to stand down. The media obviously plays a large role in shaping the perspective of horrors being done in the world, and I wouldn't argue war is the solution to all but a few problems. However, it is fairly straightforward and morally defensible that innocent people would be alive if other people were killed, and soldiers are prepared and ready to kill.

mercurial 11y ago
Innocent people are unquestionably being killed, but the US shocked and awed plenty of civilians back in the day. And its actions did cause a major civil war. So it all depends on what you think of the deeper reasons behind wars, and of how much civilian leaders have considered the consequences of their actions. The problem is that wars are rarely waged to protect innocents, they are an answer to strategic considerations.
lostlogin 11y ago
Keep in mind that the average war kills as many civilians as it does combatants. War is not precise, despite what we are told. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
- pluma 11y ago
  But luckily the US is changing that by re-defining who is or is not a civilian. Last I checked the official stance was that any able-bodied adult or adolescent male in a war zone is considered an enemy combatant in official statistics.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed." Yeah, take that. What you don't talk about is that what we call ISIS today was US best friend just months ago. They were called euphemistically "moderate rebels fighting for democracy in Syria" and they were supported economically and with weapons by the US and Saudi Arabia to kill innocent people there(and put a puppet state in place). Of course they took the weapons and crossed the border to occupy Iraq, as the failed state the US created made it so easier than fighting against a well organized, and Russia supported army. Media creates your perceptions based on their own interest. If the news come from far away, media has total control of shaping your emotions, as you don't have family, friends, eyes or ears in the place.
- WettowelReactor 11y ago
  The situation is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than how you present it here. The whole mess is made up of a plethora of parties with differing ideologies and priorities. Ascribing the formation of ISIS to the US lacks any real thought on the subject.

by rob_lh 11y ago

mercurial 11y ago

Innocent people are unquestionably being killed, but the US shocked and awed plenty of civilians back in the day. And its actions did cause a major civil war. So it all depends on what you think of the deeper reasons behind wars, and of how much civilian leaders have considered the consequences of their actions. The problem is that wars are rarely waged to protect innocents, they are an answer to strategic considerations.

lostlogin 11y ago

Keep in mind that the average war kills as many civilians as it does combatants. War is not precise, despite what we are told. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

pluma 11y ago
But luckily the US is changing that by re-defining who is or is not a civilian. Last I checked the official stance was that any able-bodied adult or adolescent male in a war zone is considered an enemy combatant in official statistics.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

"But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed." Yeah, take that. What you don't talk about is that what we call ISIS today was US best friend just months ago. They were called euphemistically "moderate rebels fighting for democracy in Syria" and they were supported economically and with weapons by the US and Saudi Arabia to kill innocent people there(and put a puppet state in place). Of course they took the weapons and crossed the border to occupy Iraq, as the failed state the US created made it so easier than fighting against a well organized, and Russia supported army. Media creates your perceptions based on their own interest. If the news come from far away, media has total control of shaping your emotions, as you don't have family, friends, eyes or ears in the place.

WettowelReactor 11y ago
The situation is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than how you present it here. The whole mess is made up of a plethora of parties with differing ideologies and priorities. Ascribing the formation of ISIS to the US lacks any real thought on the subject.