Why is it Okay to Kill People At War

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"] People kill for political power, not greed. War is always, ALWAYS politics with bloodshed. You disagree with someone on how resources are managed, what religion is right, who owns this land or what have you and instead of settling it in legal terms, you go to war. That is the base of war, politics. The greed factor is no different than lobbyists pushing for business ideals.buldog300

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which means what exactly since I'm talking about why murder is considered a crime....while war is not. Had you wished to go off in another direction then I guess you should have been explicit in your example....rather than vague.LJS9502_basic

Giving the bare bones of the situation leaves room for the imagination. However, If you cast labels aside, you'll see that it is logically justifiable.

You see it as muder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't matter. There is still a difference between two militaries fighting and someone walking up and killing an unaware person. If you don't see the difference then I don't think there is much to talk about here.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't matter. There is still a difference between two militaries fighting and someone walking up and killing an unaware person. If you don't see the difference then I don't think there is much to talk about here.

LJS9502_basic

Hey now, I thought you were arguing why duelling should be allowed. :P

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"] Who's walked up and killed an unaware person? What are you talking about? Are you talking about assassination, because that's how wars are generally started and ended without too much violence. Are you talking about one person just walking down the street ans shooting some poor bastard? That isn't tolerated because the shooter wouldn't appreciated being shot, sot enough people that felt that was wrong got together and made it a social norm to not have people killed for seemingly no reason. They/we have to us a justice system we deem s fair to make that happen. Are you talking about civies, seem my other post.Xx_Hopeless_xX

World war 1

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Giving the bare bones of the situation leaves room for the imagination. However, If you cast labels aside, you'll see that it is logically justifiable.

THE_DRUGGIE

You see it as muder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Did you read the OP? He asked the difference between war and killing others for what he considers legitimate reasons but which society does not.:|

buldog300

World war 1

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Generally wars aren't started by assassinations..Xx_Hopeless_xX

World war 1

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Giving the bare bones of the situation leaves room for the imagination. However, If you cast labels aside, you'll see that it is logically justifiable.

THE_DRUGGIE

You see it as muder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"] Who's walked up and killed an unaware person? What are you talking about? Are you talking about assassination, because that's how wars are generally started and ended without too much violence. Are you talking about one person just walking down the street ans shooting some poor bastard? That isn't tolerated because the shooter wouldn't appreciated being shot, sot enough people that felt that was wrong got together and made it a social norm to not have people killed for seemingly no reason. They/we have to us a justice system we deem s fair to make that happen. Are you talking about civies, seem my other post.buldog300

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well no I don't see murder as justifiable.LJS9502_basic

You see it as muder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

Yet it doesn't mean he doesn't know it's right, nor does your view of it being murder automatically make it the view of society.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

World war 1

buldog300

Also, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History..so i guess we could say every war starts due to unfair taxation and states rights...at least in americas case..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

You see it as muder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

THE_DRUGGIE

Yet it doesn't mean he doesn't know it's right, nor does your view of it being murder automatically make it the view of society's collective thoughts.

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Did you read the OP? He asked the difference between war and killing others for what he considers legitimate reasons but which society does not.:|

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="buldog300"] Didn't I answer that already? War is for political power, taking a random life for no reason had to have some implication before I can argue for or against it. Every study needs a frame of reference.buldog300

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] So one war = generalize all wars?..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Also, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History..so i guess we could say every war starts due to unfair taxation and states rights...at least in americas case..

edit: and the civil war was the bloodiest war on American soil, not the bloodiest war in history, American or other. Granted it caused about 200,000 American lives than WW1, but that still doesn't make it the bloodiest.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you seem to be arguing for it in this thread....LJS9502_basic

If you attack a man on the street he must fight back because he has to, similiarly.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That doesn't mean he doesn't know it's wrong...nor does it change societies view on it.LJS9502_basic

Yet it doesn't mean he doesn't know it's right, nor does your view of it being murder automatically make it the view of society's collective thoughts.

I said it before: You said its murder, the person in the scenario knows it to be survival.

Since the town would die with him, and a town is a society, society knows it to be survival.

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

It would if you were in one of the more unstable African nations.

sSubZerOo

There are warlord forces and gurrilla groups in many parts that literally have a strangle hold on the food.. The whole US incidient within Somalia during the early 90s was directly due to this in trying to stop it form happening.. Your tremendous nieve to think that this stuff doesn't happen in the world.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you seem to be arguing for it in this thread....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"] Yeah, one of the bloodiest wars in human history. The war that by all standards changed the face of the world forever. I think the fact that it was called 'the war to end all war's gives it enough implication that it can show assassinations being a catalyst or preventative for war. Besides it's not the only one, just the most well known one. buldog300

Also, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History..so i guess we could say every war starts due to unfair taxation and states rights...at least in americas case..

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Uhm, no..that logic makes no sense..it's one war...just ONE war..that doesn't mean you make a general statement about wars based on ONE more..it's importance is irrelevant to your previous statement that "wars are generally started by assassinations" which isn't true.. Civil War Revolutionary War French And Indian War War against Native Americans And many others...were not started by assassinations..

Also, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History..so i guess we could say every war starts due to unfair taxation and states rights...at least in americas case..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="buldog300"] I think it does because if an assassination can cause one war, it proves an assassination can cause others. If you can make a cure for one bacteria, you can make a cure for others. If you can do something once, you can do it multiple times. And again I say it's not the only political conflict, violent or non, that had an assassination, just the most well known. buldog300

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Wait so you're saying it's ok to generalize because it happened once..what other wars were started due to assassinations..? Xx_Hopeless_xX

When somebody is trying to kill you, it's perfectly fine to kill him or her.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="buldog300"] Don't make me fetch a textbook for a forum debate. I'm saying that assassinations of political figures can, do and will always have major implications on wars, because wars are a political tool. Do you deny that if you take key figures out of a governing body then the body crumbles?

buldog300

Hopeless's assertion was that most wars aren't started by assassinations. You provided one example of a war which did stem from an assassination in part, which is hardly sufficient evidence for the counter-assertion that most wars are started by assassination. If that wasn't your assertion, there would be no need to give the example of WWI at all.

unfortunately, factors such as the limits of natural resources, pride, greediness and other human deficiencies often leave no other possible resolution besides killing the opponent. Do you think there was another way to handle hitler?

It's not okay to kill people anytime, but society has amended rules to make it morally acceptable in certain cases to kill people. Just another example of the extreme elasticity of human morality.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

This question can't be real. :|

THE_DRUGGIE

I think its actually a pretty good question...Why do we do that?

Its been one aspect of human behavior that I can never seem to figure out. :?

you figured out most of human behaviour? now thats one report id love to read. :P