SuperSTi5 wrote: Mitchewawa wrote:
Chimaera wrote:And I disagree, removing a prison that breaks the values your country was founded on is by no mean a "dumb move".
Some values aren't practical; some need to be abandoned in time of war in favor of security. At those times, a country's image doesn't matter.
Rofl, that's the excuse and logic that leads to the majority of atrocities of war. That "ends justify the means" logic is not a good thing. If you start bending the rules, they will continue to be bent until they are warped into something radical. Nothing good has come in the past from restricting civil liberties and violating human rights during war and nothing good will come of it now. You'd think we would've learned by now.
People's, nay, all animal's instincts, are to be desperate when backed into a corner. When it's YOUR people who are in trouble it is fine to be desperate. When you are winning however, morals are needed.
What we pin as 'atrocities of war' are actions not done out of desperation. I don't think people are angry at General Custer's use of horses as meat shields during his last stand. I don't hear people complaining how the Jews that captured Germans killed them with knives. It's neccissary evil, not what mankind pins as real evil.
For example: You are stuck on a desert island with 3 other people and no food and one of them dies. Do you eat him out of desperation? Of course you do!
What we pin as 'atrocities of war' is people being relentless, ruthless, even though they were winning anyway. It's unneccisary evil, and THAT is what we pin as real evil.
For example: You are in a city and have plenty of food. Someone in the room next to you dies. Do you eat him? No, as you don't need to.
Rules need to be bent for the sake of you country's safety. Morals too. I wouldn't be afraid to break the sacred rule of 'Do not kill' when I am held at gunpoint.