Why? Why stoop to their level? What's the point? If both sides of a conflict disregard morality in the name of victory, why should anyone fight (or much less torture) for either one? Nationalism? It is difficult to imagine a less worthy cause.
"All is fair in love and war"
"War is hell"
It whould be great if the world had no war, but that whould be impossible. If a country is doing somthing you can't stand, sutch as capturing ships and taking prisners( one of the factors of the war of 181) then there is going to be fighting. The knight fighting style that revolved around honor is dead, once guns were invented people had to shoot from a distance, whitch was previosly considered unhonerable, to survive. Then the guns got stronger and the "worrior code" changed more and more, untill little morality gets into the war. Whats more important, not "stooping to there level" or not gitting hit with auto fire?
Torture is acceptable if you torture rapists, serial killers, *coufaggetsgh* ect... Because... well you know why.When you torture them torture them until they are dead.
Btw don't use torture to get info, if I were tortured I would say random stuff to them (the torturers).
Whats more important, not "stooping to there level" or not gitting hit with auto fire?
The former. What's the point of winning a war if not for justice? If the only way to avoid destruction is to not "stoop to their level", I would say it is better to die for something than to live for nothing.
Whats more important, not "stooping to there level" or not gitting hit with auto fire?
Why do you have to get with auto fire? Life is a not an ultimatum; you always have infinite choices.
Ideally, you would remain honorable AND not die. This defeatist attitude is the only reason there is war in the first place. There is always a non violent solution, you just have to look for it.
To show them how it feels and how there families or victims felt. I don't care if I stoop to there level it's fair and it's "an eye for an eye". For me it's the very justified reason to torture someone.
It was just an example, feel free to die any way you feel like...
Ideally, you would remain honorable AND not die. This defeatist attitude is the only reason there is war in the first place. There is always a non violent solution, you just have to look for it.
Idealy, yes, but if you stand up and "fight like a man" now you whould get a round in your chest...
I will use my example of the war of 1812 again, Amarica tried diplomacy but it failed. Maney wars have failed diplomacy. Your sintance was idealistic.
It depends. if you are a grown man and someone comes in, robs you, ties you to a chair so you can watch them rape yourwife and kill your children and burn your house to the ground at the end, then yes i would probably cut the man into little pieces and make them suffer.
Why? Why stoop to their level? What's the point? If both sides of a conflict disregard morality in the name of victory, why should anyone fight (or much less torture) for either one?
Hey, I myself don't support war in the least, however if you're going to figh, fight to WIN! For example if in Iraq we use the same guerilla tactics that the taliban uses would our losses been as high as they currently are?
I will use my example of the war of 1812 again, Amarica tried diplomacy but it failed. Maney wars have failed diplomacy. Your sintance was idealistic.
Failed diplomacy does not validate a war. It just means your country is bad at diplomacy. So instead of wasting men and money on a rather pointless war (I mean, Britain hardly even noticed it was happening), why not try to improve your diplomatic tactics?
Failed diplomacy does not validate a war. It just means your country is bad at diplomacy. So instead of wasting men and money on a rather pointless war (I mean, Britain hardly even noticed it was happening), why not try to improve your diplomatic tactics?
Diplomacy only works to a certain extent, though you were correct about the war of 1812, I will try to get a better example.
WWII, Hitler invades multiple cuntries, betrays deplomacy, and killed millions, any way you could think of stopping him with deplomacy?
The point I am trying to get is that war is nessisary, though yes it should be only a last resort,it will happen and if it does we need to be effective at it, an if we know our enemy it is easier to beat them, thus torturing is some times necissary for defence.
WWII, Hitler invades multiple ****ries, betrays deplomacy, and killed millions, any way you could think of stopping him with deplomacy?
No, you are right on this account. Diplomacy only works if other people allow it to work. Therefore, diplomacy will only be able to completely replace war after everyone decides to forsake war. Obvioulsy, this would be an ideal situation.
That being said, shouldn't we at least try to obtain it? As long as we use war and torture, we will never make any progress towards this goal. If we keep using violence as an viable option, we may start to think of it as our only option.
