Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How We Learned to Kill

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#101

Post by [deleted] »

universaltest wrote: post #96
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

A very good and honest article. Here's one gem I noticed, right at the end: > I don’t blame Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama for these wars. Our elected leaders, after all, are just following orders, no different from the Marine who asks if he can kill a man digging by the side of the road. Exactly. Some people seem to think that the President is the one with the most power, and that he can wield it arbitrar…

While I agree that the President is not really able to shake things up any more than his political allies will allow, the quoted statement does beg the question: Who is handing out the orders? Who is it that we blame for putting soldiers in a position to kill innocents for reasons of such dubious morality?

[deleted]

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#102

Post by [deleted] »

universaltest wrote: post #96
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

A very good and honest article. Here's one gem I noticed, right at the end: > I don’t blame Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama for these wars. Our elected leaders, after all, are just following orders, no different from the Marine who asks if he can kill a man digging by the side of the road. Exactly. Some people seem to think that the President is the one with the most power, and that he can wield it arbitrar…

While I agree that the President is not really able to shake things up any more than his political allies will allow, the quoted statement does beg the question: Who is handing out the orders? Who is it that we blame for putting soldiers in a position to kill innocents for reasons of such dubious morality?

[deleted]

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#103

Post by mentat »

transfire wrote: post #13

Imagine if we took the commandment "Thou shall not kill" to heart. Imagine if instead of killing those men on the roadside, it was the job to the soldiers to incapacitate them but take them alive. Is it possible? Of course it is possible. Perhaps harder, but possible. Here's the funny thing about killing. Somehow we continually find excuses for doing it. And the easiest excuse of all is that the other guy did it firs…

As I'm sure the theologically informed will say, it is "thou shall not murder" which is to say not socially endorsed killing.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#104

Post by PavlovsCat »

bane wrote: post #73
mrottenkolber wrote: post #25

He ordered the killing of humans because of an assumption? What the shit. Just walk over there and ask the bloke what he's doing, or investigate after they left, or throw in a flash grenade and disable, shoot the legs not the heads. Anything but kill. What are they thinking? That their chances of survival are higher if they kill the enemy combatants before they can kill them? Is this really what it boils down to? Thi…

Welcome to the hot harsh reality of war. Let us know when you realize that sometimes people lie. Your questions about other nicer approaches have been answered literally on the bodies of tens of millions of dead. Humans are extraordinarily deadly apex animals, and they'll go through unbelievable amounts of trouble to avoid getting hurt or killed themselves. The guys planting the bomb are doing that because they know…

Wars aren't rain showers, they are started and proliferated by decisions and actions.

> Soldiers aren't meant to be civilized, soldiers are meant to create the environment where civilization can exist. They're the fire that burns away at the wild things and leaves behind clear space to build on.

Waitwhat.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#105

Post by angersock »

Spooky23 wrote: post #93
bane wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the fascinating things to come out of the widespread distribution of non-lethal weapons to police has been two effects: 1 - police are more likely to use non-lethal weapons, even in cases where no weapon at all would work fine, because the long-term consequences of using a non-lethal are minimal 2 - in cases where people do die due to being attacked by a non-lethal weapon, there's generally quite a bit of mora…

There's a difference between an army and a police force. Police are there to enforce the law and neutralize criminals. Generally speaking, the police don't want to kill anyone. They want to capture the suspect and move on. Back in the day, non-lethal force meant beating the guy with a big stick, but liability became an issue. So now we pull guns on dumb kids, and a jumpy cop results in a dead dum kid instead of a bro…

So, on your last point, you're sort of missing an important part of absolute war:

Against a fair enemy, the "ability to make war" becomes the problem of destroying capital of the enemy (factories, railroads, etc.). Against an enemy that doesn't have any sort of indigenous weapons production or roads to speak of, the "ability to make war" consists of the problem of destroying the manpower of the enemy.

So, we notice that while we bombed Germany and Japan, less than three decades later they were banging along--and we notice that when we spend a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, we end up just playing whack-a-mole with hapless militia.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#106

Post by [deleted] »

universaltest wrote: post #96
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

A very good and honest article. Here's one gem I noticed, right at the end: > I don’t blame Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama for these wars. Our elected leaders, after all, are just following orders, no different from the Marine who asks if he can kill a man digging by the side of the road. Exactly. Some people seem to think that the President is the one with the most power, and that he can wield it arbitrar…

While I agree that the President is not really able to shake things up any more than his political allies will allow, the quoted statement does beg the question: Who is handing out the orders? Who is it that we blame for putting soldiers in a position to kill innocents for reasons of such dubious morality?

[deleted]

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#107

Post by fit2rule »

Scramblejams wrote: post #95
fit2rule wrote: post #5

So when are we going to learn to bridge the gap, forgive and flourish with our enemies-become-friends? Or, is that just too darn hard?

It's very hard to do if the other side won't agree to sing campfire songs with us too. Especially if they'd rather violently impose Sharia through a worldwide caliphate, to use one contemporary example. Gotta pay the Dhimmi before we can forgive and flourish. Yes, there are a lot of reasonable people on the other side of the line. But the leadership of those reasonable people can, depending on who you're talking abou…

>> rather violently impose Sharia

As opposed to "rather violently impose capitalism" using killing machines in the sky?

I think both 'sides' are as equally guilty of hatred as each other. I don't see the US Military-Industrial complex going out of its way to create peace, either - and no "but they are doing the bad thing" is not an appropriate justification.

It takes as much effort to make peace as it does to make war. The difference is: the decision to do so.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#108

Post by fit2rule »

wtbob wrote: post #9
fit2rule wrote: post #5

So when are we going to learn to bridge the gap, forgive and flourish with our enemies-become-friends? Or, is that just too darn hard?

> Or, is that just too darn hard? Pretty much. Sometimes people want diametrically opposed things, and cannot compromise. Force and violence have always been a part of life, and we can never do away with them entirely. All we can do is refrain from them as long as is practical, constrain them and use them as sparingly as possible.

Peace and tranquility have always been a part of life too, but we don't work nearly as hard to acknowledge that fact as we should.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#109

Post by SiVal »

krschultz wrote: post #22
entrop13 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that as society progresses it off loads the killing work onto fewer people - executioners, soldiers, drones, etc. These killings are presumably justified by the will of the larger society otherwise these men wouldn't be paid to do this. So a smaller part of the population does an increasing porportion of the killing, but does the overall number of people killed decrease?

We are certainly living in the most peaceful period since the start of the 20th century. For example, look what was happening exactly 100 years ago today: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index... When was the last time there was a battle with thousands of causalities anywhere on earth? War hasn't gone away, but it has definitely declined. Surely it would be better if it were gone completely, bu…

When was the last time there was a battle with thousands of causalities anywhere on earth?

A few weeks ago, inflicted by Boko Haram, according to Amnesty International:

http://watch.ooduapathfinder.com/watch/?p=10555

Not to mention the thousands of children raped, tortured, sold as sex slaves, crucified, and buried alive in the past few weeks by Islamic State:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/isis-crucified-chil...

Someone didn't get the memo about the scheduled peaceful period.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#110

Post by [deleted] »

universaltest wrote: post #96
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

A very good and honest article. Here's one gem I noticed, right at the end: > I don’t blame Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama for these wars. Our elected leaders, after all, are just following orders, no different from the Marine who asks if he can kill a man digging by the side of the road. Exactly. Some people seem to think that the President is the one with the most power, and that he can wield it arbitrar…

While I agree that the President is not really able to shake things up any more than his political allies will allow, the quoted statement does beg the question: Who is handing out the orders? Who is it that we blame for putting soldiers in a position to kill innocents for reasons of such dubious morality?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN