- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Your position on "justifiable deaths"?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:40 am
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:40 am
Admins, if this s/b moved to political board, feel free.
There's an article on yahoo right now which tells of Bill Clinton's failed/non attempt on Bin Laden. Per the article, he passed on his chance, as it would have likely killed 300 ppl. Obviously, and later, 3000+ died in NYC, two wars were fought killing no telling how many, etc., etc.
I just got through reading a Tom Clancy book, in which a 60's fictional character kills a bunch of very bad people to save the lives of a greater number of innocents. In the same book, a person justifies the near killing of 20 POW's in exchange for a quicker end to the Vietnam War, under the theory that 20 POW's are worth untold thousands of American / Vietnamese.
How do y'all feel about these "justifiable killings". Is it right to kill 10 if you know the result of not killing them means the certain death of 100? 500? 11?
Just curious.
LINK
There's an article on yahoo right now which tells of Bill Clinton's failed/non attempt on Bin Laden. Per the article, he passed on his chance, as it would have likely killed 300 ppl. Obviously, and later, 3000+ died in NYC, two wars were fought killing no telling how many, etc., etc.
I just got through reading a Tom Clancy book, in which a 60's fictional character kills a bunch of very bad people to save the lives of a greater number of innocents. In the same book, a person justifies the near killing of 20 POW's in exchange for a quicker end to the Vietnam War, under the theory that 20 POW's are worth untold thousands of American / Vietnamese.
How do y'all feel about these "justifiable killings". Is it right to kill 10 if you know the result of not killing them means the certain death of 100? 500? 11?
Just curious.
LINK
12
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:44 am to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
Is it right to kill 10 if you know the result of not killing them means the certain death of 100? 500? 11?
Without a time machine you don't anything for certain.
Besides, this isn't a fricking movie so you can't punish people based on what they might do, only what they have done.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:46 am to TigerTreyjpg
"You are guilty of future crimes not yet committed"
--Phillip K Dick
--Phillip K Dick
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:49 am to junkfunky
quote:
Without a time machine you don't anything for certain.
Besides, this isn't a fricking movie so you can't punish people based on what they might do, only what they have done
That's clearly the argument for those that favor President Clinton's inaction. That, and "who gets to make that decision, that a person is so inherently bad that a government agency should just take them out."
Action is for sure a harder position to defend than inaction, absent the invention of a time machine or crystal ball.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:56 am to TigerTreyjpg
Do the ends justify the means?I guess only if you're a liberal.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:07 pm to TigerTreyjpg
Ask Harry Truman's ghost.
For those saying "without a time machine..." without a time machine you don't know if you are going to be burned alive by acid fire when you get to work - so why get out of bed?
People make decisions, decisions that can cost or save lives every day with limited certainty of the outcome of the decision. It is called dealing with ambiguity - waiting until certainty is possible means waiting until an event is passed which is too late.
Why take a new job? You never know how it will come out? Why ask that cute girl to dance? She might not want to, might have a boyfriend, etc. Granted those are with lives at stake but the same premise is there.
You act with the best available data at the time and make a decision based on that and live with the outcome.
Clinton has said he knew Bin Laden was the number 1 security threat to the US; he also said he passed on the opportunity to get him because of the estimate of 300 hundred deaths. We know know what happened.
For those saying "without a time machine..." without a time machine you don't know if you are going to be burned alive by acid fire when you get to work - so why get out of bed?
People make decisions, decisions that can cost or save lives every day with limited certainty of the outcome of the decision. It is called dealing with ambiguity - waiting until certainty is possible means waiting until an event is passed which is too late.
Why take a new job? You never know how it will come out? Why ask that cute girl to dance? She might not want to, might have a boyfriend, etc. Granted those are with lives at stake but the same premise is there.
You act with the best available data at the time and make a decision based on that and live with the outcome.
Clinton has said he knew Bin Laden was the number 1 security threat to the US; he also said he passed on the opportunity to get him because of the estimate of 300 hundred deaths. We know know what happened.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:09 pm to TigerTreyjpg
THat was the reasoning for the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:11 pm to papasmurf1269
GTFO with that stupid shite
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:16 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Clinton has said he knew Bin Laden was the number 1 security threat to the US; he also said he passed on the opportunity to get him because of the estimate of 300 hundred deaths. We know know what happened.
From a deontological ethics perspective, you could (and maybe should) still maintain that was the correct decision even with knowledge of hindsight.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:23 pm to junkfunky
quote:
Besides, this isn't a fricking movie so you can't punish people based on what they might do, only what they have done.
bullshite. See louisiana life without parol sentence.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:25 pm to LSUtoOmaha
I think bad people should be eliminated. One bullet through Kim Jong Il's head and his immediate followers and you do not have to consider North Korea a threat anymore.
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:00 am to TigerTreyjpg
Interesting find I just came up with. I wonder if this was before or after the decision you mention...
OBL Tried to Assinate Clinton
OBL Tried to Assinate Clinton
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:16 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
It's called collateral damage & sometimes things just happen. If those 300 had be "sacrificed" how many more could have been saved?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:22 am to Wtodd
quote:
It's called collateral damage & sometimes things just happen. If those 300 had be "sacrificed" how many more could have been saved?
Do you think I was arguing against action? For 300 people in collateral damage I have a long list of "leaders" I would like to see removed...
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:22 pm to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
Your position on "justifiable deaths"?
Kill all of them and let God sort it out.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:31 pm to UpToPar
quote:
bullshite. See louisiana life without parol sentence.
I don't know what you're getting at but it sounds like it either has to do with innocent people in prison or overbearing penalties. Either way, how the frick does that go against or have anything to do with what I typed?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:33 pm to TigerTreyjpg
quote:
justifiable killings
perfectly acceptable IMO. However, the answer becomes more difficult when you consider who the target is and who is giving the order to terminate.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:47 pm to TigerTreyjpg
In the grand scheme of life and the world, 300 is not a terrbily high number. To let that be the determining factor in whether or not to take OBL is weak, IMO. Our country has taken out way more innocent people via collateral damage. You weigh the options and make a judgement call. Harry Truman certainly understood the pros and cons. He did what was necessary at the time. Clinton did what he thought was right.
Does the article state how many of those 300 were part of OBL's following and willing to do his will? Were some commanders in Al Qaeda? That also makes that 300 seem even smaller because they may not be as innocent as the article may perceive.
ETA: I cant really blame Clinton for not giving the green light since they had too much conflicting information, or so the article states. They did not really feel comfortable that the strike would yield the death of OBL.
Does the article state how many of those 300 were part of OBL's following and willing to do his will? Were some commanders in Al Qaeda? That also makes that 300 seem even smaller because they may not be as innocent as the article may perceive.
ETA: I cant really blame Clinton for not giving the green light since they had too much conflicting information, or so the article states. They did not really feel comfortable that the strike would yield the death of OBL.
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:53 pm to TigerTreyjpg
You act as if there wasn't an American conspiracy. /conspiracy theorists
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:00 pm to TigerTreyjpg
The other side of your hypothetical could be "why send in a platoon to save 1 or 2 hostages and risk the lives of these other soldiers?"
I have no data on effectiveness of extractions to know how many soldiers normally die to save 1 prisoner, but it is just a thought.
I have no data on effectiveness of extractions to know how many soldiers normally die to save 1 prisoner, but it is just a thought.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News