NicoleB said: ataraxial said: Seems kind of selfish to value your conscience over the lives of other humans. But it's not selfish to kill someone on the very low chance that they might hurt your buddies? I don't that's selfish so much as just stupid and wrong. On the other hand, if the chance is high, and it's not just 'hurt' but 'kill,' then it's neither selfish nor stupid nor wrong. |
 |
ataraxial said: I don't that's selfish so much as just stupid and wrong. On the other hand, if the chance is high, and it's not just 'hurt' but 'kill,' then it's neither selfish nor stupid nor wrong. We have different definitions of selfish, although it's actually far more and worse than that. However, no it's not "kill", you have no idea what the woman could do, even if she's an enemy, considering this was Vietnam, it's very unlikely that she's going to have sophisticated weapons, and certainly not great training in their use. I'd see the chance of her managing to kill a group of trained soldiers, who are being precarious since they've been attacked in this area before...very very very unlikely. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
NicoleB said: We have different definitions of selfish, although it's actually far more and worse than that. However, no it's not "kill", you have no idea what the woman could do, even if she's an enemy, considering this was Vietnam, it's very unlikely that she's going to have sophisticated weapons, and certainly not great training in their use. I'd see the chance of her managing to kill a group of trained soldiers, who are being precarious since they've been attacked in this area before...very very very unlikely. No one said she was going to lead a group of people to battle. She could easily lay a trap or activate one. She does not need to know how it was made to set it off. This is how situations come about that are called the "haze of war". It is where the lines begin to blur. It is possible not on the low chance but on the higher chance something could happen. |
 Where there is no imagination there is no horror. || Arthur Conan Doyle || Happy Halloween! |
Suzune-chan said: NicoleB said: The she was unlucky. Perhaps I could shoot and not kill her. And what if she is innocent? During wartime women and children are just as likely to be violent as soldiers. I cannot stop time and ask her what she is doing. Therefore, the soldiers are my family I have to have their back. If I could have taken the shot and didn't and they all died. It would be worse. People can cry about how inhumane war is and about how many non-soldiers died. However, there is an untold number of non-soldiers fighting any war. It is that infamous story, people were told not to shoot at those who were not dressed as solders, so the military dressed all of their women and children as soldiers. So what do you do now? War is dirty like that. It is not fair. Life is not fair. I agree with this completely. In addition (and I think this was mentioned already in the thread somewhere) that she was acting a might suspicious even for a civilian. |
| My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all. |
NicoleB said: ataraxial said: I don't that's selfish so much as just stupid and wrong. On the other hand, if the chance is high, and it's not just 'hurt' but 'kill,' then it's neither selfish nor stupid nor wrong. We have different definitions of selfish, although it's actually far more and worse than that. However, no it's not "kill", you have no idea what the woman could do, even if she's an enemy, considering this was Vietnam, it's very unlikely that she's going to have sophisticated weapons, and certainly not great training in their use. I'd see the chance of her managing to kill a group of trained soldiers, who are being precarious since they've been attacked in this area before...very very very unlikely. I think you need to familiarize yourself with Vietnam first. |
|
| You kill her. There's really not much to think about. It's war, innocent people die all the time and it's better she be dead then having even a 1% chance of her injuring one of your own people. I personally couldn't do it but, That's why I am not a soldier. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and then get court martialed. In war you can not think with your heart..... |
DeWinterAug 2, 2012 1:10 PM
ataraxial said: I think you need to familiarize yourself with Vietnam first. It doesn't really matter that it's Vietnam, Vietnam is just the warzone that this dilemma hypothetically takes place. It could be any war. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Telesis said: This is why we are human beings and not robots. We make judgment call everyday, and this is especially true in wartime. Then why are you willing to murder someone/group of people for your squad? Especially, when your squad are the ones doing the invading. I'm betting that if the tables were turned and another nation invaded your country and killed innocent freinds/family for being in the wrong place at the wrong time you would be outraged. So why is it ok when you to do it? If there was a group of people clearly identified as civilians and were no threat, then I wouldn't kill them. Temporarily apprehend, maybe. You ask how many people I would kill to protect my squad? Any number, assuming they were a threat. If they are a potential threat then I will make a judgement call. Telesis said: You should probably avoid war then, you'd most likely be the first to die.Unless you know for certain that they are enemies you have no right to kill them. |
| My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all. |
NicoleB said: ataraxial said: I think you need to familiarize yourself with Vietnam first. It doesn't really matter that it's Vietnam, Vietnam is just the warzone that this dilemma hypothetically takes place. It could be any war. Yeah, that's where you're wrong. If this were WWI, then nobody would even think that shooting the woman would be morally acceptable because there is basically zero chance that the woman is a threat. Unfortunately, we're talking about Vietnam, and you really need to brush up on your history if you think that the Vietnam War was like any other war. As I've said a couple times in this thread already, the Vietcong had effectively militarized the entire civilian populace where civilians actively helped soldiers and all of the soldiers wore civilian clothes. There was no clear distinction between innocents and enemy hostiles, which means that no one was really 'innocent.' Also, there was very little conventional fighting. It was guerilla warfare with a huge number of casualties caused by mines and other forms of traps and hidden explosives. |
|
Telesis said: Please don't change what I'm asking. This has nothing to do with self-defense. I'm asking how many people you are willing to kill to save your squad. Not yourself. The fact that you are willing to kill someone who could potentially be innocent shows how much you value the lives of the innocent enemy civilians. Perhaps they should be considered collateral damage so you could justify their deaths. That doesn't justify killing children and noncombatants. Unless you know for certain that they are enemies you have no right to kill them. Just because they are at the wrong place/wrong time it doesn't make it right to kill them. You didn't answer the question again either. Would you shoot if it was a child or not? Then why are you willing to murder someone/group of people for your squad? Especially, when your squad are the ones doing the invading. I'm betting that if the tables were turned and another nation invaded your country and killed innocent freinds/family for being in the wrong place at the wrong time you would be outraged. So why is it ok when you to do it? Since when does this have nothing to do with self-defense? By protecting my squadmates, I would be increasing my own chances of survival. I already answered your "Would you shoot if it was a child" question a few pages back: Sephiex said: And just in case you can't tell, I wouldn't shoot if the probability of being a civilian is higher than the probability of being militant.Children have also been used as weapons in warfare, and are not to be dismissed as possible casualties. However, a child setting a mine and detonating it is highly unlikely, as well as being capable of ambushing a squad. This also brings the probability of the child being a civilian much higher than the probability of being a militant. And this isn't even just "wrong place, wrong time." This is "wrong place, wrong time, wrong behavior." If she's a civilian after all that, then she was just unlucky and died. Sure, it's a shame, but I personally wouldn't be placing my bet on the slim chance that she's a civilian. |
| I would just like to point out to the people who are telling others that killing this women is the same as killing any random innocent. The situation says that this women is acting suspiciously. This women is not sitting in her home drinking a cup of tea, if a solider decides to shoot this women, he is not then going to go murder a bag of kittens. Also most of you are putting value on human life while complaining that others are doing the same thing. Most of you are pointing out that the soldiers are worth less then the potential innocent. Your a solider, in a wartime situation, you have served with these guys. They are your friends and in some cases on the level of family, i would guess that many people would do anything to protect there friends, these people hold a great deal of value to you. You are not just snuffing out a squad of soldiers, your putting your friends in potential dangers for the sake of your own morality and if you can watch a group of your friends walk into danger, people who have most likely saved your life a few times, your the worst. These people have families as well. These people are told that they are going to fight over sea's to protect their family and their country from harm. its a no win choice, in that choice you choose the one that saves more people. The lesser of two evils. As ataraxial said many times now, the Vietnam war was not any war. |
ReqN7Aug 2, 2012 1:53 PM
| In war you are allowed to kill anyone, even your own friends and relatives, who are suspected to cause danger to your country's men. And the chance of revenge, including terrorist attacks from them, should also be well considered and accepted too. |
| i would have called out to them earlier before it was too late.. if it got that far, i would have shot her. you already gave your life to the government the second u became a soldier. follow orders. funny this song popped in my head just an hour ago before i noticed this thread Some cussing and talking about killing in vietnam. |
NEETs (No Employment Education Training) are the least desirable people anybody would want to hire and yet they are the first choice to become moderators/admins around the internet. They have yet to have established a sense of responsibility or role in society and many are plain leeches (with minor exceptions). They are given "authority" to police sections of the internet with the powers of The Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Isn't that weird? -Migrating to another site- Update 11/9/2016 - Inactive Over a Year. Logged in to laugh at elections. |
ataraxial said: NicoleB said: ataraxial said: I think you need to familiarize yourself with Vietnam first. It doesn't really matter that it's Vietnam, Vietnam is just the warzone that this dilemma hypothetically takes place. It could be any war. Yeah, that's where you're wrong. If this were WWI, then nobody would even think that shooting the woman would be morally acceptable because there is basically zero chance that the woman is a threat. Unfortunately, we're talking about Vietnam, and you really need to brush up on your history if you think that the Vietnam War was like any other war. As I've said a couple times in this thread already, the Vietcong had effectively militarized the entire civilian populace where civilians actively helped soldiers and all of the soldiers wore civilian clothes. There was no clear distinction between innocents and enemy hostiles, which means that no one was really 'innocent.' Also, there was very little conventional fighting. It was guerilla warfare with a huge number of casualties caused by mines and other forms of traps and hidden explosives. guerilla warfare allows you to slaughter innocents I could compile a list of your ideals and laugh at it cause hayate no gotoku doesn't do it for me you can't kill women in ww1, they're white you can kill women in vietnam, they're yellow |
RegicideAug 2, 2012 3:39 PM
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Telesis said: How? In the scenario you are clearly not with them. How do you decide that probability? Really now. It's like you decide if she is worth killing or not. What gives you the right to deciding her fate like that? You also never told me why it was ok for you to do it to them. Tell me, how does anyone have the right to take anyone's life? No one does, because none of us have perfect judgment. We can only make the best judgments possible using the power allotted to us. In this scenario, my survival also depends upon the survival of my squadmates. If they are dead, then it is more likely that I will be killed before finishing the mission or while retreating. Also, I imagine my squadmates would be grateful for my saving them from a potential threat, and would thus be more likely to cover me if I was in the same position; this also increases my survival chances. How did I decide the probability that this woman is a threat? #1. She is on the trail, and I've seen her leaning down on the ground, possibly laying a mine. #2. She did not run from the soldiers, but instead chose to hide in the brush. If she is harmless, she is not acting like it. #3. This is Vietnam, and any supposedly "harmless civilian" could simply be a disguise for a militant. #4. A few weeks earlier, another platoon was ambushed in this area. A compromise would be to shoot in front of her, and see if she runs away. If she doesn't, then I could shoot her and rack it up to natural selection. |
Regicide said: This is completely irrelevant. The point of this discussion isn't what race/gender the woman is but if you would be willing to kill a woman that might or might not be innocent to save the lives of your friends/fellow soldiers.you can't kill women in ww1, they're white you can kill women in vietnam, they're yellow |
| Sephiex's post is excellent. My Solution However, I would not have shot the woman. The weapons and equipment I am carrying was never specified by the OP, so I will assume I have an accurate sniper rifle since the OP stated that I can shoot the woman. Warning shots will definitely scare the woman off. (Shoot next to her or at least disable her.) At that point, the squad will get the idea that shots are being fired in the vicinity and become alert at their surroundings. At one point, if the squad leader is intelligent enough, he will send a runner back to my location to ask what's going on. Worst case scenario: The woman runs back after the warning shots and gives off our squads location to the enemy. This is indeed bad, but it's better than shooting an innocent woman. Besides, I'm one who is satisfied more with a face to face challenge than a cowardly one. Any critics? |
JReitan said: However, I would not have shot the woman. The weapons and equipment I am carrying was never specified by the OP, so I will assume I have an accurate sniper rifle since the OP stated that I can shoot the woman. Warning shots will definitely scare the woman off. (Shoot next to her or at least disable her.) At that point, the squad will get the idea that shots are being fired in the vicinity and become alert at their surroundings. At one point, if the squad leader is intelligent enough, he will send a runner back to my location to ask what's going on. Worst case scenario: The woman runs back after the warning shots and gives off our squads location to the enemy. This is indeed bad, but it's better than shooting an innocent woman. Besides, I'm one who is satisfied more with a face to face challenge than a cowardly one. Any critics? The main issue is coming up with this solution within the time-span of around 30 seconds, because that's probably about how long you'd have to decide what to do...as opposed to completely analyzing the situation and holding a discussion about it. But there are also more possible undesirable outcomes in the event that you are not willing to shoot to kill: #1. The shot is not heard by the squad. (There could be a variety of reasons for this, such as you're using a silenced rifle, or there is background firing that sounds like it could be from the distance that you're at.) Also, the woman decides not to run, but instead tries to take cover from your shots. You would still be back at the original choice. #2. The shot is heard by the squad, and they assume you're firing upon a confirmed hostile. They also spot the woman, start to fire, and they kill the woman. You would now be indirectly responsible for her death. |
| I agree with Sephiex. Most of you are being very nice but very nice docent keep you alive. Being nice in this situation is about as close to "i will wing it" as you can get. Sephiex is making the most logical choice with the information that is given to him. If your squad dies in a known ambush point and your left alone, i don't like your odds of making it back alive. Worst case scenario is your an easy target and you get captured, that is not a quick death. I think most of you would like to die for your beliefs but would you really do that in this situation? Dying is scary. If any one of you would realistically die for your beliefs then you are the nicest people i have ever met but saying something and doing something is different. |
| Why is this thread still up for debate? All NATO military follow the same regulation for situations like these. |
 |
lpsycongroo said: So what would you do if you were placed in the same situation and why? I would shoot the woman.Its because of the fact if she is an insurgent not only would it be my fellow squad members lives in danger, it would also be my life that is in danger as well. Also I know my fellow squad members more than I know some suspicious random stranger. Most people would do the same thing too unless they just didn't care about the lives of their fellow squad members and their own life. |
| It's also important to remember Vietnam had a huge spy system the odds of someone being a spy was pretty high all things considered. |
| Why isn't the option of shooting to wound the woman on here? I would've and the shot alone would warn the soldiers of the suspicious activity. And of course the soldier could've radio'd the squad leader about the woman as well, at least let them know what they're getting into if you aren't going to shoot the woman. I personally would've shot the woman though if faced with that situation. On the battlefield, it's no longer a matter of ending people's lives, it's good against evil and you're always on the good side. The person opposite of you is simply your next step in advancing. But then again I would not put myself in that situation. I don't kill people. I never could. So it's not my problem, I thank God it's not my problem. |
 |
B_C said: Why isn't the option of shooting to wound the woman on here? It doesn't work that way like the movies. You try a non fatal shot to her limbs or anywhere deemed "non fatal" in the middle of the jungle and there is a high chance she is going to bleed to death or die of shock, infection, etc. Not saying its not possible but it doesnt happen anywhere as cleanly as it does in the movies. Regicide said: you can't kill women in ww1, they're white you can kill women in vietnam, they're yellow Way to miss the point..WW1 was a manly man war, it was messy as hell but it was manly. Soldiers in uniforms meeting on the field opposite each other, away from most settlements and they battle out till a victor emerged. Unlike the Vietnam War, The current War of Terror etc. no one was hiding behind civilians skirts so the chance of a random innocent civilian on the battlefield is miniscule. Also nice job bringing up the race card... DrunkenBlowfish said: Why is this thread still up for debate? All NATO military follow the same regulation for situations like these. No idea. I'm just here for the ride |
| The Art of Eight |
lpsycongroo said: I'm currently taking English Literature in school and last year we were given a handout discussing a hypothetical situation where a soldier was stuck between two difficult decisions. Here is the whole scenario: During the Vietnam War, an infantry squad was patrolling deep in enemy-controlled territory near the Cambodian border. At one point in this operation, the squad leader, Sergeant Johnson, decided to scout along a trail that ran through a valley leading toward a village a short distance away. Johnson told one of his rifleman, a private named Dillon, to stay on a small hilltop as a lookout while the rest of the squad followed along the trail in the valley below. Johnson expressed concern about a possible ambush on the trail and reminded Dillon that their platoon had been ambushed in this same area and had suffered a number of casualties some weeks prior to the present operation. “Don’t take any chances,” Johnson warned. “Better to kill a few of those murdering villagers than to let any more Americans die.” As Dillon watched the squad make its way along the trail, he saw a Vietnamese woman suddenly appear on the trail just ahead of the squad, but around the bend so they could not see her. From his vantage point, the woman appeared to lean over the edge of the trail and then quickly moved back into the underbrush—out of sight of the squad, but still visible to Dillon. Dillon was immediately suspicious. This was enemy controlled territory, and the woman could easily be part of the local guerilla forces. On the other hand, many innocent peasants lived in and around the village. Was the woman a guerrilla soldier who might set off a mine or booby trap when thee squad came around the bend in the trail? Or was the woman simply a peasant who had perhaps dropped something on the trail in her haste to hide from the advancing American soldiers? Also, what about the things Johnson had told him? As a soldier, he was taught to obey all orders of his superiors. To disobey is a crime. As these thoughts went through Dillon’s mind, the squad kept moving and now was almost at the spot where the woman was hiding. The squad was too far away for Dillon to call out to them. Even a warning shot would probably not stop them from proceeding around the bend. Dillon raised his rifle and lined up his sights on the woman in the brush. But as his finger tightened on the trigger, he hesitated. If he shot the woman and there turned out not to be a mine or booby trap on the trail, he would have murdered an innocent person. But if he didn’t shoot her, a number of his friends might be blown to bits if the woman detonated a mine. So what would you do if you were placed in the same situation and why? Hardly a challenge. Bang dead human. Clear orders, person exhibiting suspicious behaviour, numerous previous casualties. I wouldn't have any issues about shooting. My only concern would be maintaining proper concealment in my assigned role as over watch. The entire 'hypothetical' challenge is only a problem for people safe in a classroom who haven't been in combat before. No soldier, no REAL soldier would have any troubles answering this question. |
| While not technically anime, currently I am a big fan of Hatsune Miku. At least I can go see her in concert. |
Sephiex said: JReitan said: However, I would not have shot the woman. The weapons and equipment I am carrying was never specified by the OP, so I will assume I have an accurate sniper rifle since the OP stated that I can shoot the woman. Warning shots will definitely scare the woman off. (Shoot next to her or at least disable her.) At that point, the squad will get the idea that shots are being fired in the vicinity and become alert at their surroundings. At one point, if the squad leader is intelligent enough, he will send a runner back to my location to ask what's going on. Worst case scenario: The woman runs back after the warning shots and gives off our squads location to the enemy. This is indeed bad, but it's better than shooting an innocent woman. Besides, I'm one who is satisfied more with a face to face challenge than a cowardly one. Any critics? The main issue is coming up with this solution within the time-span of around 30 seconds, because that's probably about how long you'd have to decide what to do...as opposed to completely analyzing the situation and holding a discussion about it. But there are also more possible undesirable outcomes in the event that you are not willing to shoot to kill: #1. The shot is not heard by the squad. (There could be a variety of reasons for this, such as you're using a silenced rifle, or there is background firing that sounds like it could be from the distance that you're at.) Also, the woman decides not to run, but instead tries to take cover from your shots. You would still be back at the original choice. #2. The shot is heard by the squad, and they assume you're firing upon a confirmed hostile. They also spot the woman, start to fire, and they kill the woman. You would now be indirectly responsible for her death. #1. Bullet impacts will not only be heard, but will strike absolute fear into most soldiers. Putting bullets not only near the woman, but near the squad well get them startled. If they're smart enough to see that you've shot near them, they'll look up at the hill and see what the hell is going on. As for the silencer, I would be well-trained enough to know how to take off a silencer under 10 seconds. If the woman runs under cover, I would proceed to fire shots by my squad, so that they are alarmed. It's already ridiculous enough they would put me on a hilltop where they will not be able to communicate with me. Idiotic situations call for idiotic actions; hence my bold and idiotic solution to this idiotic problem. "Yeah you see, I'm gonna put you on top of this hill. Now, I'm not gonna be able to communicate with you, but if you see an army of hostiles coming towards us, or anything suspicious for that matter, figure out some way to tell us, okay?" The situation itself is already unrealistic. #2. This is a risk I'm willing to take. There's no other solution anyway. I will have faith in my squad to know that if they point their guns at an innocent looking woman, they will at least examine the situation thoroughly first. If she dies, I will at least know that I acted upon faith in my squad, and that I should never do so again if such faith was a mistake. |
| Playing devils advocate for fun: I want to point out that shooting to wound is not an easy thing from distance. Its why soldiers and police are trained to shoot for center mass, its not an easy shot to make. Also if you shoot at your squad and they can't make you out from that distance or don't see you at first glance then its likely they are going to lay down suppressive fire on you. The fact that someones shooting at them from your last known location alone would suggest your already dead. As opposed to the idea of someone being on the hill with no means of communication. Perhaps they were placed there as just an advanced sentry, if they saw the enemy they could run down from the hill into the village to warn their squad, after all you would put a look out on a high position. |
Laboon said: "War isnt about whos right... It's about who's left" War does not determine who is right, only who is left ~Betrand Russell |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Laboon said: "War isnt about whos right... It's about who's left" All the more reason to do what's right. Siion said: Playing devils advocate for fun: I want to point out that shooting to wound is not an easy thing from distance. Its why soldiers and police are trained to shoot for center mass, its not an easy shot to make. Also if you shoot at your squad and they can't make you out from that distance or don't see you at first glance then its likely they are going to lay down suppressive fire on you. The fact that someones shooting at them from your last known location alone would suggest your already dead. Just because it's not easy doesn't mean I won't try it. If they don't get the warning and decide to lay suprressive fire on me, big deal. At least the woman is still safe. My squad is also still safe because they will turn their attention to laying suppressive fire on me instead of advancing. I may also attempt to wave my arms into the air to tell them I'm alright. Siion said: As opposed to the idea of someone being on the hill with no means of communication. Perhaps they were placed there as just an advanced sentry, if they saw the enemy they could run down from the hill into the village to warn their squad, after all you would put a look out on a high position. If this were the case, I'd run my ass down as fast as I could down that hill to tell them of the situation before them. |
| Okay consider they are laying suppressive fire on you, your not going to wave your arms around to say that your okay. At a distance, your an unknown shooting at them. They are going to shoot to kill, secondly you have now just distracted your entire team from a potential threat, this women could use this time for any number of things. Secondly the dilemma is that you don't have time to run down towards your squad, your placed there to see threats coming from behind, this is an unknown variable that has come into play. You have your split decision. |
| First off, I'm placed there to be the look out ahead, not behind. The point is to fire shots towards them and raise my arms quickly, so that they will definitely see me. That's a risk I'm willing to take. However, if bullets wizz past me, then I will take cover. I would then take another risk to find another location that allows me to see what the woman is doing. Now this is a woman, she's not going to pull out a machine gun and fire at my squad. She only has a trap, and the trap can't be set off unless the squad advances. She'll either run away when she sees the squad's distraction, or she'll stay put. Of course, if she does pull out a machine gun, I will kill her on the spot. If she stays put and my squad is firing at me, I will wait it out until they run to my location. If my squad is a loyal squad, they will definitely send at least some men towards my location to see if I'm still alive. "Leave no man behind." If they do this, then the situation will be solved quite perfectly, since I'm actually just fine. I can then tell them the situation. Once again, this is the faith I have in my squad. If they decide to not show a soldier's true virtues, then I will remember never to make the same faith again with this squad. |
JReitan said: First off, I'm placed there to be the look out ahead, not behind. The point is to fire shots towards them and raise my arms quickly, so that they will definitely see me. That's a risk I'm willing to take. However, if bullets wizz past me, then I will take cover. I would then take another risk to find another location that allows me to see what the woman is doing. Now this is a woman, she's not going to pull out a machine gun and fire at my squad. She only has a trap, and the trap can't be set off unless the squad advances. She'll either run away when she sees the squad's distraction, or she'll stay put. Of course, if she does pull out a machine gun, I will kill her on the spot. If she stays put and my squad is firing at me, I will wait it out until they run to my location. If my squad is a loyal squad, they will definitely send at least some men towards my location to see if I'm still alive. "Leave no man behind." If they do this, then the situation will be solved quite perfectly, since I'm actually just fine. I can then tell them the situation. Once again, this is the faith I have in my squad. If they decide to not show a soldier's true virtues, then I will remember never to make the same faith again with this squad. Your behind is someones ahead *Strokes metaphorical goatee* Maybe she has a chain gun in the bush? ^_^ You'll kill her before she kills your entire squad, what a fast gunman you are. Your considering you can shoot her at a distance before she mows down your entire squad close combat style if she had a gun. That's taking an accurate shot with older style weaponry under pressure at distance. Theres also the fact that your squad is now wasting Ammo and laying down fire in a warzone in a known ambush point. If you attract enemy's then not only do you now place that women in danger, you and your squad and the village are now located in a potential battle zone =P. If you don't somehow attract enermy's out of this, maybe they are all sleeping or the gunfire sounds like the wind, you now have to continue your journey with allot less ammo. Also loyalty has nothing to do with it, if your friend is mowed down by enemy forces of an unknown size, you do not then go send more of your squad. Your body may be important but not more important then someone elses life. Also i believe that faith is another word for "thinking without proof". You don't need faith if you've got proof of something. |
| lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. |
RandomChampion said: lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. But what if the women had a thing with a thing who was the baby Jesus? I agree with you, i like that people are sticking up for the innocent women but honestly if you was a solider you would have to think allot more logically. Also i think there's a difference between thinking nice and actually doing it when your life is at stake. I'm not sure if anyone's had a life or death experience but its really messed up, death for your beliefs is not an easy thing on any level. I would love to save an innocent women but in this case it goes against all reason. |
Telesis said: RandomChampion said: lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. It makes all the difference. The right thing for a soldier to do is just to follow the command of superiours? If your superiours ordered you to massacre an entire village of defenseless people like My Lai you would do it? I guess the soldier who killed all those children, elderly, and noncombatants made a good soldier! Some people didn't have a choice to become a soldier at the time either, it's called a draft. You couldn't quit either. Screw doing the "right" thing as a soldier, I'm going to do the humane thing. Why would I fight for my country if I don't believe what they are doing is right? I feel like i have said this before, this is one women, acting suspiciously in the Vietnamese war, the scenario points out why you would and would not shoot the women in the first post. We are not shooting an entire village, we are not murdering multiple kittens. Also whether you want to be a solider or not is irrelevant, this is the scenario. |
Telesis said: Siion said: Telesis said: RandomChampion said: lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. It makes all the difference. The right thing for a soldier to do is just to follow the command of superiours? If your superiours ordered you to massacre an entire village of defenseless people like My Lai you would do it? I guess the soldier who killed all those children, elderly, and noncombatants made a good soldier! Some people didn't have a choice to become a soldier at the time either, it's called a draft. You couldn't quit either. Screw doing the "right" thing as a soldier, I'm going to do the humane thing. Why would I fight for my country if I don't believe what they are doing is right? I feel like i have said this before, this is one women, acting suspiciously in the Vietnamese war, the scenario points out why you would and would not shoot the women in the first post. We are not shooting an entire village, we are not murdering multiple kittens. Also whether you want to be a solider or not is irrelevant, this is the scenario. Read his post. He was talking about it in general. So I addressed the problem with that. She wasn't acting suspiciously at all. Like I said earlier, if she showed herself she puts herself at risk of getting raped or killed. It makes a difference because if I don't believe in the cause I won't kill for it either. *Thumbs up* Then that's okay. Like i said earlier, i don't dislike the people who are sticking up for the women I find it little weird the people are don't mind about the possibility of a few soldiers dying though. I view peoples lives little differently but that's a squad verses one women, i don't think the squad joined out of malicious reasons. Most likely just wanted to fight for their country or like you said, were drafted. Most of them would be young men, some older and all of them have families, maybe children. The same with the women but if these were guys who i fought with, even though i would never join the military myself, i feel like i would have more of a bond with them. |
| Lots of things wrong here. Siion said: Maybe she has a chain gun in the bush? ^_^ You'll kill her before she kills your entire squad, what a fast gunman you are. Your considering you can shoot her at a distance before she mows down your entire squad close combat style if she had a gun. That's taking an accurate shot with older style weaponry under pressure at distance. So she's allowed to have a chain gun, but I'm not allowed to have an accurate sniper rifle? So she was carrying a chain gun this entire time and I didn't see it? So enemy soldiers hooked up a lone woman with a chain gun? So even though we're in the past, chain guns are so prevalent that enemy rebels have enough funds to just hand out chain guns to women? Durr. Siion said: Theres also the fact that your squad is now wasting Ammo and laying down fire in a warzone in a known ambush point. If you attract enemy's then not only do you now place that women in danger, you and your squad and the village are now located in a potential battle zone =P. If you don't somehow attract enermy's out of this, maybe they are all sleeping or the gunfire sounds like the wind, you now have to continue your journey with allot less ammo. Like I said, I'd rather the enemy knew where I was then kill a lady anyday. I'm one who likes to fight face to face with my enemies. Siion said: Also loyalty has nothing to do with it, if your friend is mowed down by enemy forces of an unknown size, you do not then go send more of your squad. Your body may be important but not more important then someone elses life. Have you seen Black Hawk Down? If my squad is does not have the loyalty and bravery of true warriors, then I deserve to die with them. Also i believe that faith is another word for "thinking without proof". You don't need faith if you've got proof of something. Faith, loyalty, honor, courage, strength. They are all essential to any soldier. Siion said: You'll kill her before she kills your entire squad, what a fast gunman you are. Are just trying to rustle my jimmies? |
JReitanAug 3, 2012 12:48 PM
JReitan said: Lots of things wrong here. Siion said: Maybe she has a chain gun in the bush? ^_^ You'll kill her before she kills your entire squad, what a fast gunman you are. Your considering you can shoot her at a distance before she mows down your entire squad close combat style if she had a gun. That's taking an accurate shot with older style weaponry under pressure at distance. So she's allowed to have a chain gun, but I'm not allowed to have an accurate sniper rifle? So she was carrying a chain gun this entire time and I didn't see it? So enemy soldiers hooked up a lone woman with a chain gun? Durr. Siion said: Theres also the fact that your squad is now wasting Ammo and laying down fire in a warzone in a known ambush point. If you attract enemy's then not only do you now place that women in danger, you and your squad and the village are now located in a potential battle zone =P. If you don't somehow attract enermy's out of this, maybe they are all sleeping or the gunfire sounds like the wind, you now have to continue your journey with allot less ammo. Like I said, I'd rather the enemy knew where I was then kill a lady anyday. I'm one who likes to fight face to face with my enemies. Siion said: Also loyalty has nothing to do with it, if your friend is mowed down by enemy forces of an unknown size, you do not then go send more of your squad. Your body may be important but not more important then someone elses life. Have you seen Black Hawk Down? If my squad is does not have the loyalty and bravery of a true warrior, then I deserve to die with them. Also i believe that faith is another word for "thinking without proof". You don't need faith if you've got proof of something. Faith, loyalty, honor, courage, strength. They are all essential to any soldier. I was kidding about the chain gun but your right, instead she can have a flamethrower. Sniper rifles are accurate but at distances there are allot of variables to consider, that's why snipers have spotters with them, his job was not to snipe but to look out. You'd most likely be equipped with some sort of rifle though. Your one that "likes to think" he would fight face to face with enemies. Do you know Black Hawk Down is a movie? "Faith, loyalty, honor, courage, strength" are "preferred" in a solider, i hope you meant that. You don't need any of those to become a solider, you just have to pass a few tests, humans react quite differently under different stresses =o |
| technically you're both screwed because by vietnam the educated whites avoided the draft so if you're like me (a minority) you'd get drafted really quickly add on the fact that living in the 60s as a minority means you get horrid education (discrimination laws) neither of you want to be in that position why should you shoot? |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Telesis said: Siion said: Telesis said: Siion said: Telesis said: RandomChampion said: lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. It makes all the difference. The right thing for a soldier to do is just to follow the command of superiours? If your superiours ordered you to massacre an entire village of defenseless people like My Lai you would do it? I guess the soldier who killed all those children, elderly, and noncombatants made a good soldier! Some people didn't have a choice to become a soldier at the time either, it's called a draft. You couldn't quit either. Screw doing the "right" thing as a soldier, I'm going to do the humane thing. Why would I fight for my country if I don't believe what they are doing is right? I feel like i have said this before, this is one women, acting suspiciously in the Vietnamese war, the scenario points out why you would and would not shoot the women in the first post. We are not shooting an entire village, we are not murdering multiple kittens. Also whether you want to be a solider or not is irrelevant, this is the scenario. Read his post. He was talking about it in general. So I addressed the problem with that. She wasn't acting suspiciously at all. Like I said earlier, if she showed herself she puts herself at risk of getting raped or killed. It makes a difference because if I don't believe in the cause I won't kill for it either. *Thumbs up* Then that's okay. Like i said earlier, i don't dislike the people who are sticking up for the women I find it little weird the people are don't mind about the possibility of a few soldiers dying though. I view peoples lives little differently but that's a squad verses one women, i don't think the squad joined out of malicious reasons. Most likely just wanted to fight for their country or like you said, were drafted. Most of them would be young men, some older and all of them have families, maybe children. The same with the women but if these were guys who i fought with, even though i would never join the military myself, i feel like i would have more of a bond with them. But the thing is that soldiers know what they signed up/drafted for. Those innocent people shouldn't have anything to do with the fighting. It is always a tragedy when someone dies and should be avoided as best as possible. To kill the woman because she is at the wrong place/time is so inhumane. I get that you have a sense of duty for your fellow soldiers and that's fine but that shouldn't mean I have to kill a possbily innocent person for them. That sense of duty goes along way but not long enough for me to kill her. I would never say killing another human was humane nor would i never say its fair. Soldiers are taught to think logically, most of these young men would learn this after they join, after they make friends. I personally think wars are stupid but they happen and are often very unfair to the innocents but that's just the stupid way wars are, if everyone thought that way we wouldn't have them but when you are thrown into war, your life is important. I don't doubt that many innocents would kill a solider if they thought for a second their life was in danger. Its fine that you wouldn't kill her though, this dilemma is about morality versus logic really. Its pretty much an unwinable argument so its funny to watch. |
Regicide said: technically you're both screwed because by vietnam the educated whites avoided the draft so if you're like me (a minority) you'd get drafted really quickly add on the fact that living in the 60s as a minority means you get horrid education (discrimination laws) neither of you want to be in that position why should you shoot? I would shoot because my life is more important then hers. That sounds horrible but i don't believe in an afterlife, i have been in a near death experience once. In that situation, this is my one life and i'm not giving it up to chance. |
Siion said: Your one that "likes to think" he would fight face to face with enemies. Do you know Black Hawk Down is a movie? "Faith, loyalty, honor, courage, strength" are "preferred" in a solider, i hope you meant that. You don't need any of those to become a solider, you just have to pass a few tests, humans react quite differently under different stresses =o I don't like to think it, I'd prefer it. You really are rustling my jimmies. Of course I know BHD is a movie, why do you think I asked..? Those virtues I listed aren't just preferred, they're required for a true warrior. You can call yourself a soldier, but you are only a worm if you don't have such qualities. And if you're a worm, you deserve to be stepped on underfoot. Hence the reason why it doesn't bother me if my squad dies under such little faith and valor. |
JReitan said: Siion said: Your one that "likes to think" he would fight face to face with enemies. Do you know Black Hawk Down is a movie? "Faith, loyalty, honor, courage, strength" are "preferred" in a solider, i hope you meant that. You don't need any of those to become a solider, you just have to pass a few tests, humans react quite differently under different stresses =o I don't like to think it, I'd prefer it. You really are rustling my jimmies. Of course I know BHD is a movie, why do you think I asked..? Those virtues I listed aren't just preferred, they're required for a true warrior. You can call yourself a soldier, but you are only a worm if you don't have such qualities. And if you're a worm, you deserve to be stepped on underfoot. Hence the reason why it doesn't bother me if my squad dies under such little faith and valor. You know i'm "rustling your jimmies" on purpose right? When i said i am playing devils advocate earlier that means "Thinking from the opposite view point" which means i am doing this on purpose for f.u.n ^_^ *Look of pity* Movies aren't real life. No one said a Solider is a true warrior. Wow for someone who wants to save a potentially innocent women you sure do think very little about lives. If she did kill the squad, does that mean shes a true warrior? =O Telesis said: Siion said: Telesis said: But the thing is that soldiers know what they signed up/drafted for. Those innocent people shouldn't have anything to do with the fighting. It is always a tragedy when someone dies and should be avoided as best as possible. To kill the woman because she is at the wrong place/time is so inhumane. I get that you have a sense of duty for your fellow soldiers and that's fine but that shouldn't mean I have to kill a possbily innocent person for them. That sense of duty goes along way but not long enough for me to kill her. I would never say killing another human was humane nor would i never say its fair. Soldiers are taught to think logically, most of these young men would learn this after they join, after they make friends. I personally think wars are stupid but they happen and are often very unfair to the innocents but that's just the stupid way wars are, if everyone thought that way we wouldn't have them but when you are thrown into war, your life is important. I don't doubt that many innocents would kill a solider if they thought for a second their life was in danger. Its fine that you wouldn't kill her though, this dilemma is about morality versus logic really. Its pretty much an unwinable argument so its funny to watch. It isn't actually all based on logic. There is always some moralitiy in war. For instance, America could have just bombed Vietnam to the ground if they wanted to and wiped out their population. Wouldn't that have been the logical thing to do? It would be, but it would be morally reprehensible. If all our soldiers threw away their morality then every nation would look on us in shame (more than they look at us now). Besides, just because life is unfair it doesn't mean we have to make it even more unfair for those people. True, you have to find the right balance. I just think that a war without morality is just a terrible thing to have. They fought to keep control of a country, no point controlling a country bombed to hell. If your going to fight for an asset its better if the asset isn't a charred rock in my opinion. That docent make sense, if life is unfair it should be more fair? War is unfair, life is fair enough if not little tough at times =P I do think morality should come into war but its hard to take a moral stance when you go into someone elses country and kill allot of people. Wars are fought for logical reasons, the logic isn't always right but whether its country relations or resources, wars are not fought to be nice. |
ReqN7Aug 3, 2012 1:17 PM
Siion said: No one said a Solider is a true warrior. Wow for someone who wants to save a potentially innocent women you sure do think very little about lives. If she did kill the squad, does that mean shes a true warrior? =O No, but I'd still rather fight according to my own ways. I value life as much as you do, but part of living involves the risk of dying. You can't live without risks, that is the difference between you and I. Unless I'm wrong and you believe in risking your life in circumstances like this as well. |
Telesis said: RandomChampion said: lol@ the soldiers being invaders and the woman being potentially innocent. Neither of these points has any relevance. this is the fact of the matter - if you sign up to be a soldier, you have a duty to follow the command of your superiours regarding anything military-related. if you are not willing to do that duty, don't become a soldier. The right thing for this soldier to do would be to follow the orders and shoot the woman - that's the right thing to do as a SOLDIER. If he didnt believe in what they were doing there, he shouldn't be a soldier and quit the military. Or at least he could have asked that someone else be the lookout. This is why the military isnt for everyone. It has nothing to do with whether your country is right or wrong in this situation. It makes all the difference. The right thing for a soldier to do is just to follow the command of superiours? If your superiours ordered you to massacre an entire village of defenseless people like My Lai you would do it? I guess the soldier who killed all those children, elderly, and noncombatants made a good soldier! Some people didn't have a choice to become a soldier at the time either, it's called a draft. You couldn't quit either. Screw doing the "right" thing as a soldier, I'm going to do the humane thing. Why would I fight for my country if I don't believe what they are doing is right? If you properly read my post, you'd see that i said that you have to follow your superiours for anything military related. Massacring a defenseless village is not military related. This scenario is different - there is a suspicious woman and you were told to not take chances and neutralize anything suspicious. She may or may not be defenseless - but that dofesnt matter since your orders take into account only suspicious activity. I know what the draft was lol. You could still refuse to fight. The worst anybody can do to a free man is give them death. I never said fighting for your country if you dont believe in what it's doing. This scenario doesnt indicate that he doesnt believe that what the country is doing is right. The scenario simply states that he's a soldier. I like how a lot of you think war is about fighting the way you want etc. War is never pretty or black and white like that. Nobody said being a soldier is a clean job. In the end it comes down to doing your duty as a soldier if you accept being one. |
Telesis said: I mean after they realized that they weren't going to win. Might as well destory the enemy, right? I think that would be logical but it has no morality in it. What I meant by that is instead of making their lives more miserable we should try to make things easier on them. It never hurts to treat the enemy like a human, especially considering it's your nation that is the reason they are so miserable in the first place. All the more reason that I respect soldiers who don't blindly follow orderers and still know that the enemy is a person. I know that war isn't nice, but that doesn't mean the soldier can't be nice. Can't fault you there, i would say maybe there was some reason why they didn't bomb them afterwards but i honestly don't know enough by history to make such an argument so i will concede on that ;P We should but if i have found one thing to be true in life, its that being nice docent actually get you anywhere. After awhile it becomes a numbers game, i dont mean generally. I don't mean if you see an innocent you should put a bullet in everyone of them but in these specific sitatutions, if you be the good guy all the time then eventually chance will catch up to you. You'll ether die or your team will die. This is why people follow orders because morality gets in your way and sometimes someone has to make the horrible decision that helps them win. I wouldn't want to be that guy. JReitan said: Siion said: No one said a Solider is a true warrior. Wow for someone who wants to save a potentially innocent women you sure do think very little about lives. If she did kill the squad, does that mean shes a true warrior? =O No, but I'd still rather fight according to my own ways. I value life as much as you do, but part of living involves the risk of dying. You can't live without risks, that is the difference between you and I. Unless I'm wrong and you believe in risking your life in circumstances like this as well. Everyone takes risks, shooting at the women is still a risk. What if you miss? What if you wound her and she still sets off the mine? What if you give away your position by shooting her and you in turn get shot or captured from giving away your location? Life is risky, no matter what choice you take and taking the most pointless risks docent make you a warrior, those warriors die very fast. To be a warrior or a true warrior or what ever your on about you need experience to survive. Survival through luck docent make you experienced, it just makes you lucky. No your right, i wouldn't risk my life in this. I have nearly died once in my life already and before that i said allot of things like you did but after that, death is terrifying. Every second is important and my life is important. If i die i don't just die, my family loses someone as well and if those soldiers died because of my morality issues, do you really think their family would be happy with that? I choose the lesser or two evils. This scenario really is a game of chance so in the end it docent matter. |
| It matters in the end because if I choose to go with my solution, I will learn many more valuable things that are extremely important to know and experience. Let's go a little more philosophical here; life is a chance to understand how things work in this universe. I dedicate my own life to giving every possibility a chance, as well as learning the ways of every path, and every style of living. Let's say I am to shoot the woman. If I shoot her dead, I will never know of her true intentions. The case will close as I look over her dead body with her eyes full of the void. I will feel as though I've killed someone's entire world for an unjustified reason. I cannot live with that. Now if I decide to give the woman a chance at showing me who she is, I will learn much much more. Through her actions after being disabled or at least warned, she will express the kind of person she truly is. This is what I like to see, this is the reason why I'm living. Not only that, my squad will become involved. I will also learn how they react to the situation, how they will handle the life of a potentially innocent woman. Will they try to fight for what they think is right, or will they kill out of fear of knowing the truth of things? I'm unaware of your near death experience. But to me, having a near death experience should not make one so afraid of death. Instead, it should remind that someone that he or she must fight even harder in life to learn as much of the universe as possible before death takes him. And when death comes once again for his life, he will fight desperately to not let it take him unless he has answered the questions he has in life. Such is my philosophy of life and death. |
JReitan said: It matters in the end because if I choose to go with my solution, I will learn many more valuable things that are extremely important to know and experience. Let's go a little more philosophical here; life is a chance to understand how things work in this universe. I dedicate my own life to giving every possibility a chance, as well as learning the ways of every path, and every style of living. Let's say I am to shoot the woman. If I shoot her dead, I will never know of her true intentions. The case will close as I look over her dead body with her eyes full of the void. I will feel as though I've killed someone's entire world for an unjustified reason. I cannot live with that. Now if I decide to give the woman a chance at showing me who she is, I will learn much much more. Through her actions after being disabled or at least warned, she will express the kind of person she truly is. This is what I like to see, this is the reason why I'm living. Not only that, my squad will become involved. I will also learn how they react to the situation, how they will handle the life of a potentially innocent woman. Will they try to fight for what they think is right, or will they kill out of fear of knowing the truth of things? I'm unaware of your near death experience. But to me, having a near death experience should not make one so afraid of death. Instead, it should remind that someone that he or she must fight even harder in life to learn as much of the universe as possible before death takes him. And when death comes once again for his life, he will fight desperately to not let it take him unless he has answered the questions he has in life. Such is my philosophy of life and death. *sheds manly tears* I really liked what you just said. |
More topics from this board
» Is using random English phrases/words Chuuni?thewiru - 3 hours ago |
2 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
33 minutes ago |
|
» Why do people change ?ISeeLifePeople - Yesterday |
7 |
by Retro8bit
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
» Is it easy for you to chose what offering to your loved ones?Zakatsuki_ - 7 hours ago |
1 |
by Retro8bit
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
» Isn't it weird that we drink water?Lucifrost - Yesterday |
10 |
by Retro8bit
»»
56 minutes ago |
|
» What's the thing you dislike the most about yourself?Zakatsuki_ - 7 hours ago |
3 |
by Retro8bit
»»
57 minutes ago |