connor-53

Lets have a nice talk about ethics and morals in war.

Lets use the current Middle East situation as a starting point.

Background info: From my understanding, war is dispute between 2 or more countries or territories. And usually its the other one wants something from the other or doesn't share the same beliefs as the other and they typically want to rip each others heads off. In war you should show no mercy to an enemy and you should do whatever you need to in order to survive. Correct???

Anyway moving on........

There have been many accounts of soldiers in the middle east of not allowing to perform some search and seizures of possible "hotspots" because it is "unethical" to search the homes of suspects. For example: If you have a house in Iraq and have anything religious on a book shelf and that book case needs to be searched, you can NOT do it as a US soldier. You must have the lady of the house move the religious piece off of the book case. If she refuses, there is nothing you can do.

This is a very stupid intelligent thing to do. The government claims we can not interfere with their religion and that will do so. Do they not understand that people in those 3rd world countries that hate the US will kill themselves to kill 2 US soldiers? Also you are not allowed to destroy a car that tests positive for IEDS or other explosive devices wired into the cars, you must have a bomb squad come and disarm them...Does this make any sense at all?

Who gives a **** about ethics in the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, those people over there will do anything to kill and American soldier and we can not search their home for IEDS or other weapons without there permission? Since when should war have rules?

If the US gov't let the soldiers do what needs to be done we won't be "losing" this war, and there will be much fewer deaths and a faster success rate.

Discuss.

csc2000e

Well, I think that we should recognize that not all wars are fought because one side wants something from the other or because their beliefs are different. For instance, when the U.S. invaded Afganistan, we invaded because we were attacked. So we went after the terrorists that attacked us. The Taliban supported them, so we went to war with them. In a situation like that, we are fighting the government of the country. The Taliban. We obviously didn't want to kill innocent people who did not support the Taliban. We wanted to eventually become allies with them. Like we are now. So, treating people with respect is very important with conflicts like this. Any civil war would also apply.
I think we should treat people as people. War is horrible. And it hurts so many people. War should have rules, not because we expect the other side to follow them, but to keep ourselves from going too far.

yustr

Connor - first of all, welcome to the PS.

You're missing a major point; we're the occupiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Therefore, keeping the vast majority of the citizenry on our side is critical. If nothing else, that is the lesson of Iraq. Until the local Imam, politico's,and war lords came over to our side - things weren't going so well. Sure we could have leveled the entire place - think Faluga (sp?).

Regarding ethics of war. Is was not until WWII that the killing of civilians was considered acceptable. Sure there was the usual plunder and pillage and slave taking but for at least a couple of hundred years it was not OK to direct your wrath at civilians.

Also don't forget that its the winners who get to decide what's ethical and what's not.

Drew1369

yustr hits the major point... we have to keep that major population happy. If you spit on them, be prepared to be spit back upon.

The rules of war are set to help protect those that do not participate. If my country gets invaded and I do not participate I would expect to be left alone.

Now sometimes mistakes happen. A bomb goes off target, or you get wrong intelligence it happens, its expected. But it should not be done on purpose.

We do blow up IED laden vehicles. Thats actually standard operating procedure. Blow it up in a controlled setting so that it does less damage.

With the Laws of Armed Conflict described in detail here http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Its dual protection.

If you blow up a hospital on purpose you are going to get prosecuted. If that hospital has an anti aircraft gun on the roof, that hospital loses its protection under LOAC and therefor can legally be bombed. However military neccessity might deem it a low priority.

And csc... we invaded Afgahnistan because we wanted OBL... so what conner said still rings true

bry623

And, if we do not follow the rules of war, then we are no worse off then those who do not.

connor-53

I am not saying we should run around and kill innocent people who don't deserve to die. What I am saying is that if the US is doing a search of a house, there should be no rules to what can and can't be touched. As long as there is logical reason behind it.

Meaning if we see house 6 as a threat, we can look through the house for weapons etc, there should be no rules of what can/can't be touched. We should be able to look through anything with a solid reason behind it.

Here ion the US, police are allowed to look through your belongings with a warrant, but there is an amendment "unreasonable search & seizure" there is a median for this, and it is not being used properly right now.

Chode

Sounds like you might have been there recently. I don't think there are many easy calls in counter insurgency. Protecting your people while not making more enemies is a very fine line. Sometimes good ideas get out of hand.

Why can't you just blow up a mined vehicle? Not sure, but I'd suspect there might be intelligence data there. Or Union rules.

Drew1369

We were always careful to take our breaks on time

connor-53

not lol I am 16.

But I plan on joining the Navy as a SEAL, or the Army as a Ranger.

connor-53

Yes, there are rules for our soldiers, but not rules for theirs?

Thats like saying you are going to fight someone, you start fighting and you let them hit you. Does that make any sense?

Chode

See, this is why I don't usually try to be polite and respectful.

yustr

Young connor was booted for rude posts in other areas of TSF. Let's move on.

Chode

Did you mean move on or let's change the subject? YouTube - Jethro Tull - Witches Promise, 1970 - The Minstrel Looks Back 2DVD If we're changing the subject, it's not commentary, just music. No criticism of banned members, banded members, or band members is suggested.