 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
This is also known as: The counselor Troy syndrome.
I think i would. If anyone puts me in a position where i would be called upon to make that type of decision, but only if it was understood from the start that i may have to make it.
Otherwise i'd probably say no way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Wrong question! In the situation you describe most people would send others to die if they thought it necessary. Those who cannot bring themselves to make such a choice get pushed aside by someone who will.
The moral issue is whether you would send someone into a situation where they might get killed if you were not prepared to go yourself (assuming the situation justified it and that you could go yourself).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
I'm assuming that the only way anyone would send anyone else would be that they themselves are more valuable than the ones they send.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
So, if your only possibility to, say, save the planet, would be to force people to their deaths, you wouldn't do it?
( using a hyperbole here to demonstrate a point. ) |
Of course i would. But i assume that, if i'm asked to make that decision, it is because i am in a position to make it and that i did not get there by chance, but because i was qualified.
I would also expect that i knew all along that there was a possibility i could have to make that decision.
Did Bush expect to have to give the order to shoot a plane down on 9-11 ? I don't think he expected it. But he knew from the stsrt that there was a possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:29
|
|
Those who are not willing to put others and ones owns lives at risk for the greated good and common interest will never result to anything more than failure.
And you can quote me on that.
You see, there are more important things than the lives of few. Like freedom.. own values, the way of life, your own home and your country. No one can't take those away if you don't let it happen. No one. You might die for it, but everything has its price. You can ask yourself if you are willing to live as a slave of another force, or free and be your own master. Some people say that it is worth living as a slave, better than dying. But is it not worth a fight? Give it up for free? Many people throughout the history have died for YOU to live free and do what you want to do. Many people have defended your country, so that your family can live later without fear. Do you think, that it is free? Even when it was someone else who had to fight, or it was a long time ago, do you think it is free of charge to you? If you have any respect for yourself and for the people who fought, you are not only ready, but willing to do the same. So that others can live free and happily like you did.
So what good it is to be free if you're dead? Well, what good it is to live as a slave of someone and raise kids to serve someone elses values and way of life? That's even bigger crime! You live in a country, you have the citizenship of it. If you don't have the will to fight for it and accept the possibility of dying for it, or make the decisions of others going and dying for it, you can always denounce the citizenship. Nothing is free. And usually the heaviest prices have been paid for freedom and greater things. It makes me sick, that some folks have the nerves to walk down the streets, spitting to the faces of soldiers and defendors of your own countrymen, cursing them to hell and not giving them the respect that is due to them.
And to send others to die.. well, if you're in that position, then you must make tough decisions. You're serving what ever you are serving at the time, and you can't let everyone down because of being a wussy. It is not your fault that someone has to die. And you can't stop it either. But you can always try to make the best of it, so no unnecessary lives are lost. That's what I think about this issue.
Last edited by Pekka on 15-07-2003 at 20:14
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
It is more difficult to send others to die than for you to go yourself: if you were wrong, and killed, well, that ends your suffering. if you were wrong, and lot of others die, that makes your suffering and guilt very large.
(another interesting take on it would be to ask, who is really your best friend, he is is willing to die for you, or he who is willing to kill for you?)
I myself can see many reasons why I would be willing to send people to die, whether they signed on voluntarilly or not.
Oh, Panag, junior officers are expendable. They always have some of the highest rates of casualties of any ranks. Now the Colonels and above...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
It is more difficult to send others to die than for you to go yourself: if you were wrong, and killed, well, that ends your suffering. if you were wrong, and lot of others die, that makes your suffering and guilt very large.
(another interesting take on it would be to ask, who is really your best friend, he is is willing to die for you, or he who is willing to kill for you?)
I myself can see many reasons why I would be willing to send people to die, whether they signed on voluntarilly or not.
Oh, Panag, junior officers are expendable. They always have some of the highest rates of casualties of any ranks. Now the Colonels and above... |
hi ,
huh , what kind of doctrine is that , no-one , read again , no-one is expendable , ..... well some countries off course have funny battlefield doctrine , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-07-2003 15:26
.
|