Thread: Is this Americas future?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Is it wrong to use torture????
Is it wrong to use torture to save a life????

I would be the first to say that torture just for the sake of inflicting pain is wrong, BUT torture to save a life ?????

You apparently are saying that torture would be justified in order to save a life, and I don't know that I disagree with you, but, if it is justified, were the North Vietnamese justified in torturing US POW's? They were trying to save their people's lives.

And THAT argument is just one step away from the following scenario:

A guantanamo (sp.) prisoner being tortured because we think they know where a bomber is who might have plans to kill US civillian lives.

The key words in that sentence are 'we think' and 'might'.

Just food for thought there. I personally see no justification for torture in that case.

On the other hand if I was forced to choose between somebody dying and being tortured a bit myself I guess I would opt for the torture.

Its all in the perspective. At the end of the day its on your conscience. Can YOU live with yourself?

Originally Posted by droche

You apparently are saying that torture would be justified in order to save a life, and I don't know that I disagree with you, but, if it is justified, were the North Vietnamese justified in torturing US POW's? They were trying to save their people's lives.

Now that is a good train of thought, and I really had to think about the answer....

My first response is that torture of uniformed soldiers is against all civilized codes of conduct in war... and I think at face value that looks good, but on deeper thought...

What if a uniformed soldier had the disarm codes of a nuclear weapon that if it went off would kill innocent people and/or uniformed combatants.... That to me would be clear and imminent danger and as the saying goes, war is hell...

Perhaps that is where the real problem lies, we have tried too hard to be politically correct in warfare and made war too clean and neat....
If in opening armed conflict with another, it would mean complete and utter devastation with no regard, other the the total annihilation of the enemy, perhaps war would finally be a thing of the past....


And at this point I would have to say sorry to Mark/JMS for some serious off topic discussions in his thread but it has been interresting... and the most gentlemanly one I have seen of this type....

The problem with this tough, is that since ww2, 70% of COW has been civilians....The times when soldiers stod in lines facing each other and opened fire went out of fashion after your civil war.

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

The problem with this tough, is that since ww2, 70% of COW has been civilians....The times when soldiers stod in lines facing each other and opened fire went out of fashion after your civil war.

it's not just that, but the difference in a lot of wars between a civilian and a combatant is a compulsory draft. I dont' feel any better about the idea of mowing down a line of "martyrs" if they were forced to throw on a uniform weeks before than I do about bombing civilians. Life is precious, you do what you can to minimize the loss of life in war, but you do what you have to do. Noncombatant immunity is a crock - it made sense maybe back in like the rennaisance age, when war was a contact sport and you played or didn't, but in the modern era it just doesn't apply anymore. I wrote an honors paper on this once for a war studies degree - my socialist cambridge university trained professor loved it because he thought he was going to cream me and admitted he couldn't crack my argument. Gotta dig that back up sometime.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

And at this point I would have to say sorry to Mark/JMS for some serious off topic discussions in his thread but it has been interresting... and the most gentlemanly one I have seen of this type....

And I have enjoyed every deviation in this thread!