Do you believe war is legalised murder?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TechGod, Apr 3, 2014.

  1. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    Discuss.

    I believe it is considering the world wars and the cold war(which were a little intertwined)
    The only reason that USA went into Vietnam was to enforce their containment policy(i.e. personal gain) which is what murder is, killing for personal gain.
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    As much as I am against war, I wouldn't phrase it quite that way.

    If there were laws, as well as an entity capable of bringing nations to trial for an alleged act of war, to have both sides present evidence and testimony to argue their side of the matter, and it could be established through that process that the act was just or unjust, then I could accept the label of murder applied to war.

    Otherwise, it's another thing entirely.
     
  3. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #3
    If we are talking nation state vs nation state, in wars for survival, no.

    If we are talking wars like Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq that were fought to feed defense contractors, then yes.
     
  4. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    Where would you put WWII? If we caught Hitler would he have been put on trial?
     
  5. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #5
    Who would? The people in Germany at the start of the war supported his actions.

    Therefore in the eyes of Germany he did nothing wrong and the US wouldn't have the right to lock him up.
     
  6. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    WW2 was a little different, the long term survival of the US of A would have been at stake had Axis taken Europe, Russia and Asia.

    Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq ,and the " cold war " only existed to keep the average American afraid of threats that never existed, and keep the money flowing to the defense companies and the pentagon. The owners of the US of A clearly don't care about mass murder in the name of " freedom " ( Or in their case, profit )
     
  7. Nukemkb macrumors 6502a

    Nukemkb

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #7
    War is praying not to be in a target rich environment....:mad:
     
  8. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #8
    WW2 was more then nation state vs nation state.

    ----------

    Well the cold war wasn't about putting fear into Americans. I think it was a lot more to do with enforcing the containment policy.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    The Cold War was more a game of chicken, with both sides waiting for the other to blink and then bombard them with nukes.
     
  10. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #10
    Yes it was, " containment policy " outside of Europe was pretty meaningless. Would it really have mattered if the USSR gained influence in Vietnam ( well...they did ), or Korea? No, it was just an excuse to dump more taxpayer money into the war machine. Then scares like " bomber gap " or " missile gap " or " submarine gap " were invented, when they didn't really exist. Outside of the Cuban Missle Crises and a few rough periods in Europe, the Cold war wasn't real. It was just a way to get Americans to dump more money into the military industrial complex coffers.

    After the cold war, they had to invent " terrorism " to randomly invade other countries and keep more money flowing into defense companies. Iraq is a great example of this. Even before 9/11 plans to go into Iraq were already being made.

    ----------

    Well, the owners of the US of A realized that they could trick the Russians into a huge cold war by taking advantage of their paranoia, why at the same time robbing the American people of their pocket change to put into useless defense programs.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    I have to disagree with you. Had Hitler been captured [and not summarily executed by the Russians] he would have likely been convicted in the Nuremberg Trials and sentenced to death like some of his cohorts.
     
  12. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #12
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  13. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #13
    Who cares? the Korean conflict with not a direct threat to the US of A. At all, there was no reason to ever get into it but to keep taxpayer money flowing into defense contractors.
     
  14. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #14
    Well ummm it did affect the US. If more and more countries got communist who would pay America for imported goods?
     
  15. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    At the time, Korea did not produce anything nor did it actually buy anything from the US, and was not an industrial power, at the time after the war, the South Korea was nothing more than a leech, much like Israel is today ( that country would be a crater if it hadnt been for the US/UK ). And the North until about the early 80s was a much larger economic industrial power. Then South korea got innovative, and with the American taxpayer funding their expansion pulled ahead.

    The point I am of the making is that the Korean war was for 2 things

    1: Fuel the fear of the cold war to the American public
    2: Fund defense companies

    So no, it did no effect the US at the time at all.
     
  16. SoAnyway macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    #16
    Can I ask a larger question?

    With all our understanding of humanity, why do we even live in a world where we must resort to war instead of diplomacy to solve our differences?
     
  17. TechGod thread starter macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #18
    Hmm? That looks interesting. I would like to do that for fun but my syllabus will not see any theory or philosophy:(

    ----------

    Because of development of weapons. No rehab for mentally ill people(Hitler being one example)

    I don't think we will ever have a Utopia unless you want to look at communism as an example, however that system has far greater problems.
     
  18. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #19
    All I do know is WAR is fast becoming the American default position. Which is of course no surprise given just how big the Military - industrial - Complex has become, since Dwight D Eisenhower’s warning.

    Any problem in the world and in the last two decades, America either launches a war or threatens too.

    Because if you believe that Killing in a time of war gets a free pass, and Terrorism is just war by other means, then the conclusion to be drawn is that the victims of 9/11 were just collateral damage, and not murder.
     
  19. Kissaragi macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #20
    nope.
     
  20. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #21
    Warfare is killing, it is homicide and manslaughter and it quickly becomes murder when it is not justifiable - though, since justification changes based on the values of the culture it is judged by one rarely sees consensus on the justification of any specific war.

    Due to the brutal, stressful and often confused nature of combat itself, even popularly 'justifiable' war is thus peppered with incidents of what civil authorities usually define as manslaughter, murder and terrorism. War certainly creates a climate within which murder can easily take place.

    But in the end, it is a question of definition. Do you believe all killing is murder? How does your culture define war and murder? Is your cause considered just or not (territorial gain, self-defense, reprisal, proxy war, civil war etc etc)? By whom are you being judged?

    There is no universally applicable answer to your question.
     
  21. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #22
    No, but there are some generally applicable patterns.

    We make judgements about killing every day. 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, bystander, casualty, victim. It's all about context. What did he do, what didn't she do, what day was it, what else was going on, how certain of that are we, they may have deserved it, they probably deserved it, they definitely deserved it.

    People fight every day, usually to gain or protect resources. War is just the ultimate extension of that. 'Legalized murder' is tricky because it assumes laws apply during war. One of the features of war is the suspension of law.
     
  22. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #23
    Only between similar cultures - and even then we sometimes see vast disagreements on whether something is an atrocity or a war measure.
     
  23. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #24
    Legalized Murder? That's a bit of a stretch. I would certainly say "No" on the part of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the field. Maybe it could be argued for those that send the to war. However, then we get into "Legal Orders".
     
  24. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #25
    Nonsense. Just ask the Syrians and the Russians. The US has not fought a war to expand its borders in more than a hundred years - not many major countries can make the same claim. I grant that the 'war on terror' was, and is, a godawful mistake at multiple levels, but it was provoked by an intentional attack on civilians by people who were not wearing uniforms. In short the US was prompted into hostilities by a war crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda, and has been floundering around blindly ever since like a wounded animal. I think the US leaders and the people of the US recognise now the costs of pursuing war. The US was, like the UK, discussing reducing its armed forces when the bloody Russians decided to throw a tantrum in the Crimea. Now those reductions are at risk.

    Anyway, getting back the main point in the thread: The simple fact is that there are regimes, usually run by autocrats, that invade other countries to usurp territory. History has shown that countries that try appeasement as a strategy in the face of this do not fare well. The question we should be asking is whether there are circumstances in which not going to war leads to greater human suffering than going to war.
     

Share This Page