Too "nice" part 2

[Commander-K25]

This is somewhat of a follow-up to my earlier post, “Are we becoming too ‘nice.’ “ The same issues that we are tackling today were discussed in 1832 by Carl von Clausewitz in his famous tactical treatise, On War.

From On War, by von Clausewitz:
“...in the present age, it came very near to this, that a battle in...War was looked upon as an evil, rendered necessary through some error committed, as a morbid paroxysm: only those Generals were to deserve laurels who knew how to carry on War without spilling blood, and the theory of War...was to be specially directed to teaching this.
Contemporary history has destroyed this illusion, but no one can guarantee that it will sooner or later reproduce itself and lead those at the head of affairs to perversities which please man’s weakness...
Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed. If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then [it] is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until some one steps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body.”

[Der-Ubermensch]

Great quote..

The "kill or be killed" attitude is passé today, at the dawn of the 21st century. Such could very well be relevant in a world populated by cut-throat barbarians, but as so-called "enlightened" peoples, we the nations of this world should not resort to acts which we now know as being cruel, in order to advance in military conflicts.

Yes, the Iraqi military may not fight by the standard rules of engagement or respect any code of ethics, but that does not allow for us to use tactics which would endanger civilian/innocent lives.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/26/03 09:58 PM, Ruination wrote: Great quote..

I'm not saying that we should be barbaric and neither is Clausewitz. It means that we cannot let our sword become "dull." The world is not quite kill or be killed, but there are evil people that do evil things. We cannot delude ourselves into the concept of a war without casualties, civilian or otherwise.

In the Battle of Normandy, over 14,000 civilians were killed. Yet, FDR wrote a letter before D-Day saying that he would try to restrict the military in the carrying out of the war and thus cost even more lives.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/26/03 10:05 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:
In the Battle of Normandy, over 14,000 civilians were killed. Yet, FDR wrote a letter before D-Day saying that he would try to restrict the military in the carrying out of the war and thus cost even more lives.

Whoops. It should read:

..he would NOT try to restrict the military...

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/26/03 10:05 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 3/26/03 09:58 PM, Ruination wrote: Great quote..

I'm not saying that we should be barbaric and neither is Clausewitz. It means that we cannot let our sword become "dull." The world is not quite kill or be killed, but there are evil people that do evil things. We cannot delude ourselves into the concept of a war without casualties, civilian or otherwise.

In the Battle of Normandy, over 14,000 civilians were killed. Yet, FDR wrote a letter before D-Day saying that he would try to restrict the military in the carrying out of the war and thus cost even more lives.

I can truly agree with you to a certain degree; completely grasp the positive nature of your statement.
The reason that I can't fully agree with you is due to the fact that an innocent human life is priceless.. and cannot morally be tallied as an expense for a successful war or even to save others(as nonsensical as that may sound to some).

[mysecondstar]

war is war is war. war is brutal. war is indiscriminant. war is evli. justifiable murder is still murder no matter how noble the cause. if we could resolve issues without fighting we would be in a perfect world. unfortunately we will always resort to fighting for what we want.

a war is not a war if no one dies civilian or military. we can't skirt the edges because we don't like a certain aspect of war. it wouldn't be a war otherwise.

[NSS-SEPP]

"innocent human life?"
i hear that quite alot now.

can someone define "innocent"?

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/27/03 09:24 AM, NSS-SEPP wrote:
can someone define "innocent"?

being born, and not knowing of religion or government sidings...that's the true definition

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/27/03 09:24 AM, NSS-SEPP wrote: "innocent human life?"
i hear that quite alot now.

can someone define "innocent"?

an 'innocent' is someone who wasn't going to shoot at you, in the purpose of a war.

[NEMESiSZ]

Kill ten, save a thousand.