During wartime we commit many atrocities and justify them. Before the wars start and the people know who to hate, there is propaganda designed to turn the populous against the newest enemy. Yet we still see ourselves as right. what would you do if you were on the receiving end of the gun? asking for help but instead receiving basically that? everything American being used to crush you and your way of life?
5 comments:
Before we enter into a topic of discussion on the ethical lapses that occur in times of war, we should understand that each nation fights wars to further their self-interest. No matter how utopian any nations platform, there are very few if any situations that can be presented that a nation acted due to a humanitarian platform. If we look at United States foreign policy, we can see many situations that prove this contention. For example, during the Persian Gulf War the United States invaded Iraq because it was its 'duty' to protect the small nation of Kuwait. However, even when defending a nation with no military, it becomes obvious that we had other intentions at heart. First, Kuwait holds about eight percent of the worlds oil reserves. Any disruption in about ten percent of the world's oil supply would be disparaging to a nation that consumers a quarter of the world's energy. Secondly, it should be dually noted that the United States sent much of the bill of the war to Saudi Arabia. In fact, some sources cite that we made a profit on the war. United States foreign policy always takes this mold. Using this observation, I would have to disagree with the statement that states "we still see ourselves as right." This contention is backed through a warrant of "turn the populace against the enemy." First, the populace does not control foreign policy; there have been many unpopular wars in American history. Second, top government officials (the ones with the power to control troops) surely know the circumstances of each war. Third, I would say that this is a clear of ad populum and therefore should not be associated with the term "right." For example, a majority of Germans supported Hitler's facist policies; however, this did not make his policies just. Thus, I believe that many Americans do not see themselves in the right.
Next, I would move to address your contention that states that war causes many crimes against humanity. In any war, there will be innocent lives lost. This is inevitable. Thus, this becomes a non-unique arguement for it can be cross applied to any nation that has ever fought a war.
Finally, I would like to address your statement that we are taught who to hate through the use of media. I would state that the America people have made judgments for themselves concerning those they show great disdain for. Often times, it can be argued that the United States was the victim. Warrants of this include 9/11, US-Iran embassy kidnappings, etc. We were not taught to hate the people who committed these crimes but rather made these judgment for ourselves.
After addressing the overview of the absolutist statements posed, the answer to the question must be grounded from an ethical and moral standpoint for without such a viewpoint, one could certainly justify such behavior. For example, citations of "might is right" and principles of authorative justice. However, I believe that in the hypothetical situation posed, the person cited is an innocent victim of an American occupation. In this situation, it would be wrong to take the life of another human being. This would be especially wrong if said human being is helpless. Though the answer to this question comes with its own problems because of the ambiguous nature of the hypothetical situation proposed.
In times of war, it is often difficult to tell between an enemy or a friend. During the Vietnam War, hundreds of soldiers lost their lives after being befriended by a child who happened to be wearing an IED (or something of that nature). Secondly, collateral damage poses a problem to the situation you have oversimplified. I would like for this hypothetical to be considered which I believe will add to the moral nature of this debate. If United States intelligence recieves word that there is a terrorist in a home who has led violent movements in the past, should the United States send a strike to destroy the home knowing that innocent civilians will die? One should also consider that a greater number of lives could be saved in the long run by taking the life of the terrorist (by stopping his future actions).
To answer the second question posed, I don't believe that war would be an accurate portrayal of American values. As stated before, the common man has little say in foreign policy decisions. I would say that a missile being dropped on a village is not an American decision but a military decision that is carefully weighed before such an action is committed.
certain matters i have my own belief's about and i have no intent to convince you to change your ideals, even though i believe you are either misinformed or flat out wrong.
i can definitally see your points. i would also like to hear your opinion on what you would do if you were part of the opressed country. what would be going through your head as you saw the houses of your neighbors absorbed in flames because your neighbor's son, three doors down was suspected to be a terrorist even if you knew he wasnt.
Both of you, back to your corners. This is NOT a debate. Make sure we are focused on the rhetoric, how it creates meaning not the validity of the assertions.
I don't know if I am about to aberrate from the given assignment, but I will analyze the rhetorical devices used in Sentafax's rebuttals (just thinking outside the box). First are foremost, I think there is too much oversimplification going on. In a military decision, it is more than just that decision. It does not simply rely on inductive or deductive reasoning as you are portraying it too be. For example, in any war, a nation must think of underlying economic principles, public sentiment, etc. Thus, it is not always a soldier killing without any statute of limitations. To analyze the appeals Sentafax has used, I would say they have all been based on pathos. Wheras I gave clear analytical warrants for my views which were based off logos, Sentafax has attempted to appeal to my emotions. For example, Sentafax has continuously told me to put myself into the shoes of a citizen who is being effected by an occupation and feel their plight. While such appeal has some merit, it again ignores the complete sphere of issues. Sentafax also used ad hominems to attack me. For example, the phrase "flat out wrong" seems to be a red herring for my arguements and instead questions the very validity of my points without ever addressing them. Thus, in terms of rhetorical devices I believe my warrants based off logos are greater than arguements based off pathos, especially when critiqing the military which cannot base its decision solely of lives lost in a specific situation.
Post a Comment