Alright, I'll bite. But please understand that I don't spend a lot of time pondering these sorts of things. So my thoughts here are off-the-cuff and should be treated as preliminary and open to revision.
On the subject of complying with certain munitions restrictions that were written in 1899, I have a genuine problem with that. (1) Defensive technology has become far more efficient and thus complying with rules written over 100 years ago places our soldiers at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with more modern defensive technologies. (2) Once an individual has opted to take up arms against another individual, he is, by definition, an enemy. He has chosen to utilize violence to express his will, and his will is the immediate and catastrophic end of his opponent. Given that, I believe that his opponent (in this case, a US soldier) has every right to seek the immediate and catastrophic end of the enemy.
Moreover, what is gained by utilizing less effective weaponry? Are we hoping merely to wound the enemy so that he might be "rehabilitated" much like prisoners are allegedly "rehabilitated?" My guess is that the liberal, left-winger is actually deluded enough to believe that this is a viable outcome. I, however, believe that such "rehabilitation" is, at best, a remote possibility that could, under highly unlikely circumstances, be actualized. By what is probable? In other words, has the wound caused him to radically rethink his worldview? Probably not (said with more than just a hint of sarcasm). In any world save for the fantasy world conjured by many liberals, the insurgent is probably even more bitter now that he has suffered a personal loss in addition to any losses that he felt when he originally took up arms to defend whatever it is that he felt the need to defend.
Finally, there is the question of minimizing long term damage. There are many today that believe that a full-on invasion of Japan would ultimately have cost the US and the Japanese far more in terms of lost human lives than the the lives that were lost through the dropping of the atomic bomb. Now this is a far more delicate argument and one that should not be entered into lightly. But my point here is that utilizing ineffective technology for the sole sake of adhering to a document that is out-dated (in terms of technological warfare) lends itself towards the probable prolonging of the conflict and the loss of more human life.
In the end, what many liberals fail to realize is that the diginity of human life must be protected. And we, as Christians, must be willing to take the lives of others if those individuals are committed to taking life in an unjust fashion. And this is why, ultimately, I am not a Christian pacifist. Because the pacifist, while paying lip service to the value of human life, is ultimately unwilling to realize that what one does with one's life either strengthens or diminishes the value of and the right to possess a life in the first place.
On the subject of complying with certain munitions restrictions that were written in 1899, I have a genuine problem with that. (1) Defensive technology has become far more efficient and thus complying with rules written over 100 years ago places our soldiers at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with more modern defensive technologies. (2) Once an individual has opted to take up arms against another individual, he is, by definition, an enemy. He has chosen to utilize violence to express his will, and his will is the immediate and catastrophic end of his opponent. Given that, I believe that his opponent (in this case, a US soldier) has every right to seek the immediate and catastrophic end of the enemy.
Moreover, what is gained by utilizing less effective weaponry? Are we hoping merely to wound the enemy so that he might be "rehabilitated" much like prisoners are allegedly "rehabilitated?" My guess is that the liberal, left-winger is actually deluded enough to believe that this is a viable outcome. I, however, believe that such "rehabilitation" is, at best, a remote possibility that could, under highly unlikely circumstances, be actualized. By what is probable? In other words, has the wound caused him to radically rethink his worldview? Probably not (said with more than just a hint of sarcasm). In any world save for the fantasy world conjured by many liberals, the insurgent is probably even more bitter now that he has suffered a personal loss in addition to any losses that he felt when he originally took up arms to defend whatever it is that he felt the need to defend.
Finally, there is the question of minimizing long term damage. There are many today that believe that a full-on invasion of Japan would ultimately have cost the US and the Japanese far more in terms of lost human lives than the the lives that were lost through the dropping of the atomic bomb. Now this is a far more delicate argument and one that should not be entered into lightly. But my point here is that utilizing ineffective technology for the sole sake of adhering to a document that is out-dated (in terms of technological warfare) lends itself towards the probable prolonging of the conflict and the loss of more human life.
In the end, what many liberals fail to realize is that the diginity of human life must be protected. And we, as Christians, must be willing to take the lives of others if those individuals are committed to taking life in an unjust fashion. And this is why, ultimately, I am not a Christian pacifist. Because the pacifist, while paying lip service to the value of human life, is ultimately unwilling to realize that what one does with one's life either strengthens or diminishes the value of and the right to possess a life in the first place.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 10:02 AM
2 Comments:
See Scott, you surprise me. I would have thought that you wouldn't feel comfortable upping the ammo power on the grounds that it was an unjust conflict. It seems that our thinking is quite in alignment.
But you did write: 'Moreover, what is gained by utilizing less effective weaponry? Are we hoping merely to wound the enemy so that he might be "rehabilitated" much like prisoners are allegedly "rehabilitated?"'
In a sense, I think you're half-right. I'd be interested to see if Tim chimes in... But as far as weaponry, I've read a theory that a wounded opposing soldier is actually better than a dead one. He would require more of the enemy's resources, as well as serve as a greater detriment to morale. I'm not sure I buy into that theory, but it's been one that's been presented. Further, I don't think that it applies to modern terrorists.
I'm to the point to where I don't see the wisdom in the Hague and Geneva conventions much at all. Our opponents don't. So why should we limit ourselves? Don't shoot at the civilians, but if you see an enemy combatant, use whatever means necessary to take them down. And there's no sense in taking a prisoner, unless it would serve our intelligence efforts.
I'd be happy to discuss Hiroshima and Nagasaki at any time. I've spent quit a bit of time learning about it--and it's a point of serious frustration for me, as revisionist history has TOTALLY lost perspective of what the (then) leaders were facing. Suffice it to say that they absolutely made the correct decision. Without question.
Perfect example of further stupidity. Now, there's a treaty to ban cluster bombing.
If there is a cluster of terrorists or a cluster of enemy combatants, I say we cluster bomb them..
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/cluster.treaty/index.html
Post a Comment
<< Home