Even after I was specific, you're still missing my point. I said that such concerns cannot be the primary concern for a military commander. I have never said such concerns should not be the primary concern of anyone in a position of leadership, ever.
It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
Now a part of that is naturally instilling in the military sufficient humanity-different people draw that line in different places. A military commander is by definition divided into "us and them" thinking. That's his job. To defeat the enemy without sustaining defeat yourself, usually by killing the enemy. Or practicing to do so, making one's enemies wary.
None of this means that this is the only thing a military commander should think about. Obviously there are many other concerns. But ultimately, insofar as his occupation is concerned, a military commander's first priority must be victory. Others are supposed to answer questions regarding how much victory, of what type, and what should be done to obtain it. But it's become clear to me over the years that you do find something ghastly about the military anyway, so I expect these are wasted words.
If you think this commander has decided all on his own, without political oversight of any kind, to include concerns for Palestinian civilian death, I think you're mistaken.
So, for the record, just to be absolutely and perfectly clear: I do not think that a military commander shouldn't be concerned about civilian casualties in pursuit of military objectives. I just don't think that can be the first, most important priority. Because once it is...well, the commander is defeated.
-------
camus,
quote:This doesn't really sound like "sometimes getting hurt as a side effect." If you know that civilians will be killed and you intentionally do it anyway, that's not much different than deliberately targeting them, imo.
There's different and there's different. Yes, a civilian killed in pursuit of some other objective is just as dead as one who is targeted specifically. Possibly that civilian, if there is an afterlife, would be just as upset about it, too.
But unless you're willing to downplay the importance of intent in all things-unless you're willing to ignore what people intend, what they mean, what they're working towards-when you judge them, I think you should reconsider your opinion on what is and isn't different.
If I murder my neighbor in cold blood, should I receive the same penalty as if I murdered that same man because there was a man behind me threatening to shoot me if I did not? The neighbor is just as dead, isn't he?
Note: I am not trying to portray that as the situation between Palestinians and Israelis. But it does go to the issue of whether or not intent matters.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But unless you're willing to downplay the importance of intent in all things-unless you're willing to ignore what people intend, what they mean, what they're working towards-when you judge them
Not to say that intent is not important to some extent, I am willing to downplay its overall importance. After all, many atrocities are committed with good (or misguided) intentions.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I daresay you couldn't point to an atrocity and say its executioners had good intentions. Unless you take their words at face value.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good intentions from their point of view, or do you suggest intentions should be judged good or bad before some type of committee?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Hitler, Stalin, all the big favorites throughout history...they weren't carrying out atrocities whilst living in the gutter wearing rags. They were carrying out atrocities living on the high horse, getting and staying in power. I think you know exactly what I mean, and are just playing semantic games, camus.
My intent does not necessarily equal what I actually say. I could, y'know, be lying-to you, to myself, or both. It takes an examination of what actually happens and an evaluation of intent to really, I believe, judge someone, not a committee. It's imprecise, yes. But it's better than your stance, which is to say essentially that intent doesn't matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Easy for you to say. And I really do hope that some day you find yourself learning what it really means to have a savage population trying to murder you. That you find yourself on the target side of this kind of war. Because you seem to be unteachable with words.
Wow, that's possibly the most aggressively hateful thing I've ever heard someone say to me. Thanks I guess. I hope you die too, mazeltov!
And they aren't savage, your words indicate your prejudice. I don't think you understood the meaning of my words or for that matter my post at all. As always, you took it as some sort of assault on Israel, and on the whole, it wasn't. Some of it was criticism sure, but in typical starLisa fashion, you took it to the extreme.
If you think it's in the best interests of Israel to keep the status quo for the next few hundred years then so be it, I won't criticize Israeli policy anymore. You obviously know what you're doing. Ahem.
I don't know why I get pulled into arguments with you. You aren't reasonable, and there's no evidence to show you ever will be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A military commander is by definition divided into "us and them" thinking. That's his job.
Would you say that an individual's duty to do their job is a more "primary" concern than their duty to do the right thing?
I would say ANY person's primary duty is usually to do the right thing, and only after that to do their job. For instance, a salesman should not lie to trick people into buying their product, even if that would help him sell more of it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with believing that ALL Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel is that it leaves room for only one type of response to Palestinian terrorism.
And that response has, to date, been less successful than anyone would hope. In fact, it has had the opposite effect to that desired by the Israelis.
The problem with believing that there are moderate, and even peace-loving Palestinians, is that that comes with a moral burden and a practical one: to not turn them into your mortal enemies through mistreatment; to foster them whenever possible; but above all, not to kill them.
One problem with going back and forth on the issue is that the Israeli government switches strategies too often to really know the effects of its policies, whether they be strong-arm or conciliatory. It's all a big jumble that not even a good time-series analysis could disentangle adequately.
I look to Israel and Palestine and see the future of US/Middle East relations. We're doing the same things, in many ways. And facing the same types of foes, drawn from similar backgrounds -- intense poverty, easy access to damning information about our past behaviors, and a culture of distrust and antipathy towards us.
------------------------------------
The Palestinians, for their part, have a government in name only. The rule of law is practically non-existent. And for the average person, life just "happens to them." They have no great vision for the future and no real hope of developing one in this generation.
Investing there is a huge gamble. Thus, they will remain backward and poor in comparison to even their poor neighbors in Jordan and Egypt.
Poverty and lack of employment means that young people have a lot of time on their hands, and a lot of frustration ripe for harvesting.
So long as there is an external enemy to blame (Israel, the US, Britain), the "leaders" will use that excuse rather than focus on what can be done within Palestine. And hey, it's not like there aren't obvious abuses they can point to in the past and present. And they know that any government that doesn't sing that song is basically slitting its own throat, because the next most abusive entity in Palestine, has been their own leaders.
That only helps groups like Hamas. An angry, disillusioned population, especially angry teens with time on their hands, is like automatic recruitment for the terrorists.
----------------------------------------------
It seems to me that there are only 3 options for making the situation safer (going along the same road as now is not an option since it would lead to only the safety of today):
1) Wholesale deportation of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Anyone who thinks the Israelis are going someplace else is fooling themselves. So, if this were ever to be the chosen option, you can bet the Palestinians would be moved out, by force. Or simply killed.
or,
2) Slow, steady dedication to a process of improving the life of people in the Palestinian states to the point where recruitment of kids into terrorist organizations becomes less and less likely.
Neither of these is going to make Israel a "safe" country. It'll make it a "safer" country. Neither will make the PA a safe and prosperous country. But under #2 it'll be safer and more prosperous.
Then there's #3)Option 3 is to seal Israel more or less completely. Anyone entering the country would have to be checked thoroughly and basically enter the country only after a period of quarantine after a good thorough strip search and some assurance that they aren't carrying a deadly plague in their body. Nothing larger than a six-pack of soda could be allowed in without inspection and, perhaps, lab testing. An air barrier extending beyond Israel's borders should be sufficient to protect against bombs being flown in. Then we just have to worry about medium-to-long range ballistic missiles. They can have whatever works from our technology, I suppose, and develop something better for themselves. Maybe some space-based anti-nukes? Whatever it takes.
I personally favor option #2. I'm not a fan of mass movement of people, and I definitely don't think genocide is a solution, since the rest of the Arab world would still exist out there, and they'd be more than just angry -- they'd be wondering if they were next. Actually, deportation would have a similarly chilling effect on the other neighbors of Israel. In fact, for #1 to work, it'd almost have to include a program of genocide against most of Israel's neighbors, and ultimately the entire Arab world since some of those countries have nukes and could someday become convinced that Israel is enough of a threat. Pre-emptive death to all of Israel's neighbors is about the only way to ensure a sufficient safety buffer once the world starts down the path of #1, IMO. Since that's not likely to happen, I think option #1 would result in Israel's destruction by force, unless the rest of the world entered into a war to stop it.
I don't think Israel would survive option #3. Economically, it'd be a disaster. And, ultimately, if ICBMs are introduced into the Arab world, there'd be no effective shield against their use, someday, eventually. And safety could not be guaranteed.
#2 is the toughest one. Things would take a long time to get better. And the world in general would have to chip in BIG TIME because it'd be totally unfair to expect Israel to spend it's limited resources on those who are now its enemies. Especially since in the early stages of such a program, the costs would certainly outweigh the benefits. (i.e., there'd still be terrorists in large numbers even as we spend billions on making sure that Palestinians have good jobs and schools).
And, frankly, Israel's government can't be counted on to stick to one program for the length of time this would require. No government can.
The whole thing needs to be turned over to the IMF and the UN. or some new body if those have provent to be ineffective.
...
or...
we could just let things alone. let them fight it out. Eventually, there'll be a clear winner and a clear loser. And we can all wait for the blood to settle into the earth, and for the crops to become less radioactive. And then the survivors can build a new civilization from the ashes.
I'd sure be interested in hearing another set of options. Or, if someone things option #1 or #3 is the preferred one, I'd like to hear the reasoning.
Ultimately, I just KNOW we'll never even try option #2. It's not the way our world works.
But if every other option has been tried, or every other option leads to MORE death and hardship...is there a great loss in trying this one?
Sadly, though, I don't see an option that gives Palestinians much of a chance for sane self-government in the near term. The world powers would almost have to insist on the current leadership stepping down. They have proven to be corrupt AND ineffective. One or the other we could work with, but both in combination makes it impossible to believe that investment in the country will do much good.
Also, I hate to even bring this up, but to make #2 work, Israel would almost certainly have to agree to let someone else (besides their forces) take care of going after the terrorists in the PA regions. I don't see how the presence of the Israeli military could do anything but slow the progress if option #2 were decided upon.
I don't see Israel doing that without significant concessions and assurances.
In short, I don't hold out much hope for the region.
And sadly, I think we're heading into a World War over it.
In view of that, I'd rather take some strong-arm tactics with BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians. Basically drag the Palestinian areas into prosperity, and force the Israelis to keep out of the region until it was accomplished. Even when terrorists still sneak into Israel and kill people.
But, now I'm sounding like everything I hate in Bush's approach to Iraq.
So, ultimately, I suspect when it comes right down to it, I'm going to just sit here and watch the entire region go up in flames and say "well, I saw that coming."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you say that an individual's duty to do their job is a more "primary" concern than their duty to do the right thing?
I would say ANY person's primary duty is usually to do the right thing, and only after that to do their job. For instance, a salesman should not lie to trick people into buying their product, even if that would help him sell more of it.
No, it is the job of the people giving the orders never to order the commander to do something wrong. Wrong in the way I think you're meaning. And "do the right thing" is a very flexible phrase anyway. Especially with you, who regard terrorists as placing a high priority on avoiding civilian casualties.
Anyway, this is also not to say a commander should follow every order given, or yield up the conscience at the door to the base. There is a lot of deliberate obtuseness going on here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I hate to even bring this up, but to make #2 work, Israel would almost certainly have to agree to let someone else (besides their forces) take care of going after the terrorists in the PA regions. I don't see how the presence of the Israeli military could do anything but slow the progress if option #2 were decided upon.
I don't see Israel doing that without significant concessions and assurances.
Who can Israel trust to do such a thing?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
That might be the law as it's written, but who's to say that the moral duty of the military is to obey their leaders? I say their duty, like yours and mine and everyone else's, is to do what's right whenever possible. This might include mutiny, it might include turning against unjust leaders to depose them, or if they receive just orders it would be their duty to obey them. But hiding behind the notion that a soldier's duty is to his people and not to the greater ethical good is, in my mind, unjustifiable.
Let me give an of example. I think the true duty of the German soldiers during WW2 was to surrender, or to depose their leaders. They did the wrong thing by fighting for a country that was so badly corrupted. Since many were ignorant about some of the details of the Nazi regime, they can be partly forgiven for not knowing what they were doing. But I would say most of them were still at least partly culpable.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Um, Hitler's massacre of the Jews? I mean, the guy was mad, sure, but he apparently sincerely believed all the 'parasites weakening the race' rubbish he spewed. And I don't think you can argue that he needed to kill the Jews to enable his own ambitions - after all, by the time he had the power to order such a thing, he was already in power. The Holocaust was the end, not the means.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That might be the law as it's written, but who's to say that the moral duty of the military is to obey their leaders? I say their duty, like yours and mine and everyone else's, is to do what's right whenever possible. This might include mutiny, it might include turning against unjust leaders to depose them, or if they receive just orders it would be their duty to obey them. But hiding behind the notion that a soldier's duty is to his people and not to the greater ethical good is, in my mind, unjustifiable.
The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders. It's a two-way street. And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You? There are things a soldier might do that, unlike say machine-gunning a village of civilians, are in fact quite debatable, ethically speaking.
KoM,
quote:Um, Hitler's massacre of the Jews? I mean, the guy was mad, sure, but he apparently sincerely believed all the 'parasites weakening the race' rubbish he spewed. And I don't think you can argue that he needed to kill the Jews to enable his own ambitions - after all, by the time he had the power to order such a thing, he was already in power. The Holocaust was the end, not the means.
We don't know if he really believed that-although speaking for myself, I think he did, of course. What we do know is that he surrounded himself with men who said things like, "Lie big enough and often enough and the people will believe it." Food for though regarding what Hitler actually thought about his rhetoric, ain't it?
And anyway, the Holocaust wasn't the end, at least not according to the plan. Thousand Year Reich, remember? Hitler was doing it-he said so-in order to purge Germany and make it pure and more powerful...but who was running Germany's show? Hitler, of course. If the nation he ruled became more powerful and pure, then of course he did too, right?
Not to mention all the political dissidents he murdered as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that argument stretches a bit. After all, Hitler was an old man by the time of the Holocaust; killing all the Jews was surely a rather long-term plan for strengthening the Thousand-Year Reich. You might also consider that Hitler's actions are not those of a man pursuing power for the sake of the wealth and pleasure it brings him, or even for its own sake. He lived quite frugally. I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church : He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour, and his quest for power was a means to further that end, not an end in itself.
And besides, a strong Germany the way he ran it was not a bad thing for the ordinary German. Cheap imports because he could dictate the price he paid to his conquests, for example. Unlimited land. A servant caste of 'Untermenschen'. Whatever psychological kick people get out of being top dog in the world - and while you might not approve, you can hardly deny that it's real. You can see it even in Americans today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, power isn't its own end and justification, KoM? That's nonsense. To some, power is as worthwhile as wealth and pleasure. To some, power brings pleasure.
I'm going to ignore your effort to-again-extend this discussion to another indictment of religion, beyond pointing out that I recognized it. It's just as tiresome, wrongheaded, and predictible as ever.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders.
Then a commander does have a higher duty to disobey orders to kill Palestinian civilians if those oders are unethical?
quote:And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You?
Nobody decides what the greater ethical good is. It is what it is, regardless of what anyone thinks it is. But when judging what to do, I think it is the individual soldier's or commander's duty to judge whether they think the order they've been given is ethical or not, just like every person has a duty to judge for themselves how best to act rightly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, power isn't its own end and justification, KoM? That's nonsense. To some, power is as worthwhile as wealth and pleasure. To some, power brings pleasure.
Yes - to some people. I do not think it is obvious that Hitler was one of them.
quote:I'm going to ignore your effort to - again - extend this discussion to another indictment of religion, beyond pointing out that I recognized it. It's just as tiresome, wrongheaded, and predictable as ever.
I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
2. Your profile says you are located in Chicago. I assume that if that is current it means Chicago, IL USA.
3. I'm sure everyone here is pretty confident (I sure as hell am) in Israel's ability to deal with foreign and domestic threats, and you being angry and offended 6178 miles from Tel Aviv helps no-one.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes - to some people. I do not think it is obvious that Hitler was one of them.
It seems pretty obvious to me, given the kind of people he surrounded himself with deliberately. Those people believed in lying to support their belief structure. If they deep-down believed it was true, it wouldn't need lies.
But anyway, if it's not obvious one way, it's certainly not obvious the other way. So far the only "evidence" you've provided for your conclusion that Hitler's primary motivation wasn't power for himself was...he lived frugally.
quote:You might also consider that Hitler's actions are not those of a man pursuing power for the sake of the wealth and pleasure it brings him, or even for its own sake. He lived quite frugally.
You're implying here that someone who lives frugally cannot be pursuing power for any reason other than he truly believes in his cause. This is obviously wrong.
quote:I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
quote:I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church.
&
He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour...
This is obviously an indictment of religion. I realize you think religious people are stupid, KoM, but we're not that stupid as to miss the thrust-in-our-face obvious. Anyway, your credibility when you say, "I'm not insulting religion," is basically non-existent. You routinely insert insults to religion into discussions that had nothing to do with it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders. It's a two-way street.
And the question is, what should the soldiers do when the people don't live up to their end of the deal? Your view seems to be that they should pretend that their orders are ethical and act on them anyway. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If something is unethical, don't do it!
quote:And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You?
You don't believe there's such a thing as ethical right and wrong?
Obviously, as Tres already said, it's up to each of us to judge ethically, but that doesn't mean we can't make mistakes. And obeying unjust orders is a moral mistake.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
quote:I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church.
&
He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour...
This is obviously an indictment of religion. I realize you think religious people are stupid, KoM, but we're not that stupid as to miss the thrust-in-our-face obvious. Anyway, your credibility when you say, "I'm not insulting religion," is basically non-existent. You routinely insert insults to religion into discussions that had nothing to do with it.
Uh. I don't know about his history, Jeff, but I do know yours -- and hyperventilation at disagreement's hardly uncommon with you. I'm not sure I see, at least in the quotes you've provided, where he's criticizing religion -- unless you believe fanaticism and self-delusion are inherent qualities of religion. And if you do, this reflects on your beliefs, not his.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the question is, what should the soldiers do when the people don't live up to their end of the deal? Your view seems to be that they should pretend that their orders are ethical and act on them anyway. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If something is unethical, don't do it!
I agree. There are different systems of ethics for different people in different situations, though.
For instance, it would be unethical for a businessman to pursue a business strategy that would cost civilian lives to achieve financial victory. However, for a soldier, in some situations it would be ethical-by most standards-to pursue a strategy which would cost a single civilian life.
No need to be upset, Destineer. Eddie's been doing that for quite awhile. Being told I'm hyperventilating by him is nothing new. I'm used to it.
----
Eddie,
King of Men said that Hitler was holding religious fervor for his beliefs-which were delusional and fanatic. Therefore, he was suggesting that fanaticism and self-delusion are aspects of religion. That's insulting. You knew precisely what I meant, because I emboldened the bloody quote. Please return to ignoring me, I'd appreciate it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: King of Men said that Hitler was holding religious fervor for his beliefs-which were delusional and fanatic. Therefore, he was suggesting that fanaticism and self-delusion are aspects of religion.
I'm not sure that's the case, Jeff. The one statement doesn't logically follow from the other.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, given my history on these boards, possibly 'passionate' would have been the better word choice. That is the sense of 'religious' that I was trying for : A belief sufficiently powerful to build one's life and actions around.
quote:You're implying here that someone who lives frugally cannot be pursuing power for any reason other than he truly believes in his cause. This is obviously wrong.
No, I meant to imply that people who pursue power for other reasons than believing in their cause usually use that power to live quite luxuriously. And even if that is the only evidence I have produced so far, that still puts me one up on you : You have done nothing but assert your superior insight into Hitler's mind.
Moreover, I did actually give a different argument, a bit back : Hitler had no need to exterminate the Jews. Indeed, from a military point of view, it was a deeply stupid diversion of resources. And yet the killing persecution didn't really start until Hitler was pretty well entrenched in power, 1941 and 42. There was certainly persecution before then, but not so much of the deporting-to-camps' variety. You can hardly argue that he needed to shore up his power by that time!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure that's the case, Jeff. The one statement doesn't logically follow from the other.
This is KoM we're talking about, Tom. He's cultivated a reputation for saying things like that. It's hardly my problem if he says things like that and gets taken the way he's stated himself dozens of times in the past.
--------
KoM,
quote:No, I meant to imply that people who pursue power for other reasons than believing in their cause usually use that power to live quite luxuriously. And even if that is the only evidence I have produced so far, that still puts me one up on you : You have done nothing but assert your superior insight into Hitler's mind.
I've never said he was pursuing power only for its own sake. Obviously he believed in his cause, but I believe he believed in power for himself more-again I point out the type of people with which he surrounded himself. People who had said, "Lie and people will believe it." That suggests he cared more about power for himself than trusted in his cause. You're not one up on anything, KoM.
quote:Hitler had no need to exterminate the Jews.
You and I know that is true. He obviously believed differently. He felt it was important to get rid of them to ensure Germany's security in the future-a future he, Hitler, would be ruling.
quote:And yet the killing persecution didn't really start until Hitler was pretty well entrenched in power, 1941 and 42.
Yes, but he only did it when he could-when he knew he could get away with it. When it could be more or less hidden from outsiders. That suggests he was concerned with being caught, concerned with his reputation.
If he placed his cause above power for himself, I think he would've cared less for such things.
quote:You can hardly argue that he needed to shore up his power by that time!
I've never suggested he did it or needed to do it to support his power in the short-term. It was called the Final Solution, not the Solution for the 1940s.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think we have now reached the point of arguing over differences that the evidence available to us just can't distinguish between. How about you agree that he believed in his cause, and I agree that he didn't exactly object to the power it gave him, and we leave it at that?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even after I was specific, you're still missing my point. I said that such concerns cannot be the primary concern for a military commander. I have never said such concerns should not be the primary concern of anyone in a position of leadership, ever.
It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
Again, I don't think that's the case. I'm arguing that humanity is inextricably tied to the highest levels of military leadership.
Let's draw an analogy. If you are the CEO of the company, your job is the maintainance and successful execution of this business. Cooking the books is often an effective way of buying time for the company to adjust to fluctuations in the market. My argument is that even as a CEO, it is not permissable to cook the accounting books because there is a tacit precondition of humanity that precludes false accounting, even if that false accounting will aid the business.
There are two reasons for this precondition of humanity. If it didn't exist, then free market economics would implode because without a bedrock of trust, commerce becomes difficult to impossible.
The second reason, and more disturbing, is the indignity of licensing monsters within the polity. In my esteem, military leaders are not monsters because of their job. If they act as monsters would, it's because we have encouraged them to do so, and this encouragement is something we should be ashamed of.
quote:I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Hitler, Stalin, all the big favorites throughout history...they weren't carrying out atrocities whilst living in the gutter wearing rags.
Probabaly because they couldn't carry them out whilst living in the gutter wearing rags.
quote:They were carrying out atrocities living on the high horse, getting and staying in power. I think you know exactly what I mean, and are just playing semantic games, camus.
The conditions that enabled them to carry out their desires have no bearing on what their intentions actually were.
quote:My intent does not necessarily equal what I actually say. I could, y'know, be lying-to you, to myself, or both.
My argument has nothing to do with what is officially stated. Rather, I believe that most people sincerely believe that what they are doing is ultimately for the greater good.
quote:It takes an examination of what actually happens and an evaluation of intent to really, I believe, judge someone, not a committee. It's imprecise, yes. But it's better than your stance, which is to say essentially that intent doesn't matter.
I never said that intent doesn't matter at all, just that intent doesn't excuse certain crimes against humanity.
quote:Those people believed in lying to support their belief structure. If they deep-down believed it was true, it wouldn't need lies.
Not true. A person can believe something to be true (or good) while recognizing that the majority of people may not agree with him. Thus, he may see the need to lie in order to carry out what he believes is good. In all actuality, this happens all the time; people lie to friends all the time with the belief that they are serving their best interests.
So in other words, I feel that Hitler truly believed that exterminating the Jews would make the world a better place. He was acting based on his convictions, and those convictions do not excuse actions.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
