StarGateWars Forums

And they do have a good motivation to use the depleted uranium.

It's an opportunity to store the radioactive waste elsewhere. To get rid of it.

And KF got one of the things I was trying to get across. Discussing the morality of it all isn't the best approach, because the individuals who do this do not care about your sense of morality and morality itself changes.

here's an intresting point:
we all know the "Garden of Eden" story, the one about the tree of knowledge.
what many miss is the fact the bible actually sais "tree of knowledge good and bad" (genesis 2, 17). (what ever translation you have might actually say "good and evil" (like the king james' translation), but the original hebrew says "good and bad". "good and bad" is usually interpreted as good and evil, but it can also be interpreted as "of high quality, and of low quality" (good being synonimous with the greek "arete'", and bad being the reverse of good)).
anyway, as you might remember, Adam and Eve were cast away from the garden of Eden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge good and bad.
so, in the judeu-christian tradition, the original sin (and here is where we reflect on the meaning of sin), is the most commonly interpreted as... having a knowledge of morality.
what does this mean?
damned if i know. i take it as "good going for that being an atheist choice", but feel free to take it any other way you wish.

Agapooka wrote:And they do have a good motivation to use the depleted uranium.

It's an opportunity to store the radioactive waste elsewhere. To get rid of it.

well how very liberating of us, to invade and destroy their nation because we have run out of places to dump our waste!

Agapooka wrote:And KF got one of the things I was trying to get across. Discussing the morality of it all isn't the best approach, because the individuals who do this do not care about your sense of morality and morality itself changes.

the fact that they dont have my (or anyone else's) sense of morality isn't the issue, the issue is, we are engaged in war crimes, all in the name of freeing the Iraqi people...after all...isn't that why we went into Iraq?! or was it because of WMD's?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Agapooka wrote:And they do have a good motivation to use the depleted uranium.

It's an opportunity to store the radioactive waste elsewhere. To get rid of it.

well how very liberating of us, to invade and destroy their nation because we have run out of places to dump our waste!

Way to miss the point completely. All I'm saying is that it's enough motivation to use the depleted uranium if you can disregard common moral assumptions.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Agapooka wrote:And KF got one of the things I was trying to get across. Discussing the morality of it all isn't the best approach, because the individuals who do this do not care about your sense of morality and morality itself changes.

the fact that they dont have my (or anyone else's) sense of morality isn't the issue, the issue is, we are engaged in war crimes, all in the name of freeing the Iraqi people...after all...isn't that why we went into Iraq?! or was it because of WMD's?

You know as well as I do that those reasons are rubbish to be fed to the masses who are bound by morality. The military has no such chains. It needs only keep itself thus unbound by inventing a moral reason for its endeavours.

Its endeavours may be bound by a completely different sense of morality, which also being based on assumptions, albeit drastically different ones, seem logical to the ones operating thereupon. For example, if I assume that the survival of the human race is more important than the survival of the individual, I may see it as moral to kill off a few billion people in order to ensure a sufficient supply of food. If I assume that everyone else is misguided and cannot think logically, it would seem moral to tell them lies so that they are tricked into doing what I believe is logical and moral. Do you see what I am saying?

And then you imply that those people are "evil", simply because they are making different assumptions than you are. Fine, but I can see why they would believe that you are evil. You are ardent in your opposition of what is, in their minds, the ultimate moral plan for humanity. Evil only means "in contradiction to *my* sense of morality".

The question that is left is: why are your particular assumptions better than theirs, mine, your next-door neighbour's? I'm not saying that they're not better. I'm not saying that they are. I'm asking you why you seem to believe that they are. What if all that exists is the self and the rest, and even one's own ego are the product of an illusion so grand that the reality of things is that the only moral path is to see beyond the illusion and what one does within the illusion is irrelevant? That definitely is *one* of *many* possibilities.

No, I don't complicate things. I just point out that they *are* complicated. Cheers.


Agapooka

Removed

I honestly don`t understand why the abhorrance of the "moralilty" in the context.

I mean I don`t think you`ll find a morality scale that wouldn`t find questionable use of a weapon that even allegendly pollutes and toxicates the battlefield and takes its toll not only on combatants and users but on civilians in years to come.

Why dance arround the porridge. You can either take a stance that it`s not morraly questionable or that it is. Thefact you don`t want to classify it as neither for some reason suggest to me you don`t think it is but for some reason don`t want to say so lol. Or vice versa. Which in itself is your morallity creeping up behind you.

I mean for crying out loud, wehave little issues branding dozens of other weapons or tactics as immoral and in some cases even have them banned due to their effects or side effects, why sidestep this one.
Is combat gas considered a bad thing? Apparently so but I dont think production costs and complexity of deployment have much to dow with it eh? Indiscriminate nature of it has more to do with it lol.

Removed

My point ofc. being that those are not the factors that 190states on the planet took into consideration when signing up for the chemical weapons convention lol.

I mean the vast majority of the planets is capable of recognizing the fact indiscriminate biological and nerve agents are not a cool thing, and not because of the complexoty of production storage and delivery lol.

You`re deliberatly sidestepping the question.

Removed

Look the point I was trying to make is that if you go look at the preambule of these treaties utilize moral judgments.

So if they are, when realpolitik doesnt get in the way, you as an induvidual sure as heck can.
Inthis context take note that chemical ali was sentenced to his 4th life sentance just last week. Irony effing galore innit? I mean not as if the guy did anything "immoral" lol eh?

So stop pussehfooting around, please, and answer the question. Is in your oppinion, not the oppinion of the chief of staff or the anual national security report or the army efficiency board, utilization of a indiscriminate neural agent morally questionable?

Or, for a better and more direct comparrison, is utilization of a nuclear device morally questionable? Were hiroshima and nagasaki questionable from a moral pov?
And via that is utilization of UD shells that reportedly allso pollute a large area with harmfull radioactivity and toxins that affect the inhabitants and next generations morally iffy?

Less than flying a jet into a skyscraper? Cos morality QQs are pritty epic there.

Removed

KF, you asked what the link was in my last reply to you, i only posted it as an example of how much veterans are despised by Govts. listing gun owners and veterans as "terrorists" shows just how much the Govt and military cares for its troops.

if they can list them as terrorists, do you seriously think they care what happens to the troops on the battle field?

and this is what they do to soldiers who try and open their mouths, regardless if they are ordinary Joe's or stars like Pat Tillman: http://www.rense.com/general77/assassination.htm

i dont want to get hung up on the conspiracy of the death of Pat Tillman, i'm just proving a point, nothing more.


@nooneinparticular: does morality still not come into any of this?



as for the use of nukes by Truman in WW2...if i had been alive and an American after the bombs had been dropped...i would have killed Truman...or died trying.
the loss of civilian life and the damage wrought on Japan should be abhorrent to everyone! (IMHO).
so we save a few thousand soldiers lives...but at what cost to civilians? its the same thing in Iraq!

Brdavs wrote:Inthis context take note that chemical ali was sentenced to his 4th life sentance just last week. Irony effing galore innit? I mean not as if the guy did anything "immoral" lol eh?

He was not sentenced because his actions were immoral. He was sentenced because he acted in a manner contradictory to written law.

Everyday, people do things that are not against written law, but are construed by many to be "immoral", yet could never be charged by a tribunal for those actions. Likewise, there are many cases of individuals doing things that are not commonly perceived as necessarily immoral, but contravene written law, resulting in a conviction.

While the two (commonly perceived as immoral and written law) often intersect, they are by no means the same thing. People do not regularly get convicted on a basis of morality. They get convicted based on a lawyer's interpretation of written law. Even that can be tossed aside and overlooked in situations of "national security".

And this isn't an issue of dancing around the bush. I may or may not have an opinion and my own sense of morality, but I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim that it be right, nor that it be the only logical understanding of what be right and wrong. How can one claim that their understanding is logically solid if the logic's foundation is the proverbial sand of assumption?


Agapooka

[KMA]Avenger wrote:as for the use of nukes by Truman in WW2...if i had been alive and an American after the bombs had been dropped...i would have killed Truman...or died trying.
the loss of civilian life and the damage wrought on Japan should be abhorrent to everyone! (IMHO).
so we save a few thousand soldiers lives...but at what cost to civilians? its the same thing in Iraq!

what if you were one of the countless civilians that had been hurt by japan or even in the armed forces at the time.
you would have done nothing to truman for using the bomb. regardless of your current morality or standards that you think you have. you would cry and praise (god) (if you have one) that the war was over.


so you would not have used the bomb.
you would have sent in our troops and killed all of japan instead of using them.
the japanese fought to the last man on islands that were not even their homeland how do you think they would react if you were invading japan itself.

you care more for civilians of your enemy than the troops of your own nation who are there to protect you.

well of course they joined the military so they are prepared to die for us. so lets just let them do that now wont we.

of course we feel bad about the damage we did but what is done is done and we would not have done it differently.

im sorry but reading the arrogance in the said quote forced me to post.
you can post whatever you like regarding this but i wont respond to it because you clearly have no brotherhood at all.

you read and interpret things according to your own bias instead of trying to understand what it is i am saying...

so we invade and destroy eastern countries because of WMD's, but its OK for the west to drop them on whoever they like?

PLEASE!!! listen mate, if you really want to point fingers, point them at FDR and Truman, because FDR knew full well an attack on pearl harbour was coming, the Aussies saw the Japanese fleet sailing past and warned the US and the US had broken Japanese codes and new themselves all the lintel they were getting about the Japanese fleet was true.

now, why would the Japs who had trade relations with the US want to attack their trade partner?!

because the US cut off trade with Japan and imposed an oil embargo on them forcing them to go to war and justifying the Japanese armies stance on expansion of the Japanese empire.

you wont find that info in ANY conventional history book...but that's OK, we can just drop bombs on civis if we have to eh?


since you have stated you wont respond...back on topic.