Humanitarian Warfare

[bluethread]

Though I understand territorial warfare and see that as clearly Constitutional, I am conflicted over humanitarian warfare, pardon the pun. I gather that I am not the only one, because it appears that though nearly all pacifists strongly oppose territorial warfare, some strongly argue for humanitarian warfare. Given the situation is Syria, this issue is now front and center. So, the question is do you think that humanitarian warfare is moral and should Trump have bombed the chemical stores at that base in Syria?

[Neatras]

I'm legitimately torn on this. Because I'm developing a personal philosophy that is notably lacking in experience due to my youth, I can't make bold claims about what should happen in Syria. I wish I had more time to figure out where my efforts should focus.

But I have to ask: if those people who lost their lives had the chance to beg for help, would it be wrong to help them? The dead can never return, and that means their cries, dreams, fears, and rights are swept out of existence. Just because a corpse can't ask for aid doesn't mean we should pretend they're alright with being mistreated by their government.

[Joe1950]

This idea goes back to the concept of a "just war". A war fought for higher purposes. As someone who has pacifistic tendencies I am very hesitant to get involved in wars that anyone calls "humanitarian " wars. Why?

Because war, by its very nature , is not humanitarian. War is killing human beings. Period. It is steel ripping apart flesh. It is napalm or sarin or any of a thousand other technologically advanced weapons mangling children.

So, to go to war you must have an outcome and process that is less damaging to people than whatever situation they are now in. Do a poll of Iraqis. I doubt many would say they liked Saddam Hussein. And I doubt that fewer would say their society is better off because of the US war on Iraq. Under Saddam if you kept your mouth shut you had a job, a middle class lifestyle, medical care, education for your kids, etc.
Free speech? NO. Political freedom? NO

Today you can't even go to the store without worrying about bombs going off. Schools are closed. Hospitals were destroyed. The educated middle class fled. And political and religious turmoil reigns. I doubt that many in Iraq see the "war of liberation" as a positive thing.

Are there times when it is justified to use limited military force? I would say yes. But you always have the Law of Unintended Consequences to deal with.

Every war is going to be a "two week war" and every war the invaders expect to be "greeted as liberators". Be very careful before you commit to war. The road ahead is foggy.

[JP Cusick]

Though I understand territorial warfare and see that as clearly Constitutional, I am conflicted over humanitarian warfare, pardon the pun. I gather that I am not the only one, because it appears that though nearly all pacifists strongly oppose territorial warfare, some strongly argue for humanitarian warfare. Given the situation is Syria, this issue is now front and center. So, the question is do you think that humanitarian warfare is moral and should Trump have bombed the chemical stores at that base in Syria?

I would not view Trump bombing the base in Syria as a humanitarian war or action or any concept of humanitarian.

Trump (or supporter) might call it so, but it was not.

The US civil war where the North responded to the southern aggression and southern illegality and the southern atrocities was a humanitarian war.

I do not agree in calling the civil war as moral or as morally right but it can be called as a righteous war. I would say that Abe Lincoln was morally right in his role as a person and as the US President, but the Northern States were not so upstanding as was their President.

As to Syria - the entire USA involvement in Syria is morally bankrupt with no moral quality at all.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 3 by JP Cusick]


"As to Syria - the entire USA involvement in Syria is morally bankrupt with no moral quality at all."

Many of us saw Trump as a new beginning for the world and moreso for America.

How did the country fall so low? Wars seem to come easy.

[JP Cusick]

Many of us saw Trump as a new beginning for the world and moreso for America.

I did not vote in the last election on my ethical grounds, but I did celebrate Trump winning, and thank God that horrible woman did not win.

So yes I too see Trump as a new beginning, but that same perspective of "a new beginning" is the sentiment for every new President throughout our history.

I was like many people in America and throughout the world who really wanted and expected that Barack Obama would be a grand new beginning - as Obama would end the wars and stop the torture and promote a better society in the USA with better race relations and more opportunity for the poor and a better life for all.

Yes President Obama failed to perform and he did not live up to our hopes and desires, and yet even after Obama failed he was a better choice then the other horrible options of McCain or of Romney who ran against him.

America often picks the less-worst of the candidates, as we do not get a fitting candidate that everyone (vast majority) wants.

Now the problems are far bigger and more complicated then Trump can solve, and what we need is a religious or spiritual leader to rise and so far there are none.

How did the country fall so low? Wars seem to come easy.

If you are interested in a Bible perspective then see this link below:

The United States and Britain in Prophesy ~ Chapter 9

In my own view the USA fell so low because we were always so low, and we were raised high artificially and without merit, so now we are just falling back into the sewer where we (the USA) rightfully belonged.

The American land continent was just so rich in resources and opportunities that us white invaders only had to take and grab in order to prosper into a super power - we did not get this by our merits or virtues.

Even if we call the USA as a Christian Country - it never ever followed the teachings of Christ, and we the USA was always a violent warmonger nation from the beginning, and a sinful people, and that is the true history and the reality.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by JP Cusick]


"As to Syria - the entire USA involvement in Syria is morally bankrupt with no moral quality at all."

Many of us saw Trump as a new beginning for the world and moreso for America.

How did the country fall so low? Wars seem to come easy.

Well, there are the pictures of dead children. That tends to get people upset and then they demand action from the government. What should a president do? Should he just tell people that it is not our problem. I don't know of any President, Republican or Democrat who has done that. Personally, I could accept that, if it were properly presented. However, I gather, I am in an extreme minority.

[JP Cusick]

Well, there are the pictures of dead children. That tends to get people upset and then they demand action from the government. What should a president do? Should he just tell people that it is not our problem. I don't know of any President, Republican or Democrat who has done that. Personally, I could accept that, if it were properly presented. However, I gather, I am in an extreme minority.

Hypocrisy troubles me, and I do not see any of it as humanitarian.

Does the USA get rid of our own stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? ~ hell no.

We kill prisoners by lethal injection and thereby we are superior to those who cut off the head of prisoners - and yet I can not see any moral high ground.

The USA is supplying the arms for at least 3 or more sides in Syria and yet we have no right to be in Syria at all.

As far as I know there is no one in Syria who are actually trying to end that barbaric war - except the ignorant demand that the USA must win win win.

I can not think of any war in history to categorize as a humanitarian war.

Of course you seem to be just referring to "warfare" as in poison gas is not humane but guided missiles and precision bombs are the humane type of warfare.

Instead of poison gas the people are killed by bombs and bullets, and the USA is okay with that.

[bluethread]

Of course you seem to be just referring to "warfare" as in poison gas is not humane but guided missiles and precision bombs are the humane type of warfare.

Instead of poison gas the people are killed by bombs and bullets, and the USA is okay with that.

Not really, I'm just confused by how the left goes back and forth on the use of military force. Under Obama Iraq was the "bad" war and Afganistan was the "good" war. They were all lined up to support the war in Irag, when we got in. Then they turned on a dime to oppose it afterwards. They draw lines in the sand and then don't act when they are crossed. The all came out in favor of the Syrian strike, when it happened. However, bombing a Taliban complex is bad. It is all very strange.

[JP Cusick]

Not really, I'm just confused by how the left goes back and forth on the use of military force. Under Obama Iraq was the "bad" war and Afganistan was the "good" war. They were all lined up to support the war in Irag, when we got in. Then they turned on a dime to oppose it afterwards. They draw lines in the sand and then don't act when they are crossed. The all came out in favor of the Syrian strike, when it happened. However, bombing a Taliban complex is bad. It is all very strange.

In that case it would have been better for me to just stayed out of this thread.

Sorry if I derailed your topic.

My own view is that both sides - right and left - liberal and conservative, are each hypocritical, warmongers and barbarians.

I see it all as just aspects of power politics, so the Democrats support anything done by the Democrats, and Republicans support anything by their own Republicans, and of course they each oppose anything done by the other Party.

It is all based on the mindless competition, because each side is trying to win win win, and trying to beat the other side, so ethics and morals and right from wrong get stomped underneath of each for their power grabs.

I really hope that you are not viewing the right as the one in the right?