How far would you go?

[NewHampshireDem]

I've heard so much in the news about the Iraqi's hiding weapons in mosques and schools, and dressing as civilians to attack our soldiers. As someone raised on "Red Dawn" in the 1980's, I guess my question is "how far would you go to defend your own country from an invading army?"

I mean, honestly, if some foreign power invaded the US, I'd do whatever it took to kick their asses out. What do these morons expect the Iraqi insurgents to do? Dress in orange jumpsuits? Hang signs outside of their bases, reading "Insurgents Gathering Inside ... Americans please keep out?"

I certainly would draw the line at hiding weapons in hospitals and schools, or using ambulances or firetrucks to launch attacks ... however, that assumes that I hadn't exhausted all other possibilities. If it was the last chance I had, I probably would do it.

[Political_Junkie]

1. Absolutely,

You play by the rules when they stay on their own home turf. They cross the line into yours and anything goes!

[Alpharetta]

2. I don't think I would

Hiding weapons at a school or a hospital? In effect it is sacrificing the lives of innocent children and the sick.

Moral judgements are made, even in war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Moral judgements aren't worth jack shit

when your life is on the line.

[Alpharetta]

5. yes they are

some pregnant moms with cancer risk their lives, choosing not to undergo chemotherapy because they want to keep their fetus healthy

strangers on the street sacrifice their own body to push a child or the elderly out of the way of a car

the man in Texas who could have hidden, instead he wrestled down the gunman who had shot the lawyer outside the courthouse and then walked off

==

even in resistance to an occupying force, I would not draw innocents into the conflict

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. You're missing the point

EVERYONE is in danger. Hospitals are not a safe haven when the entire country's freedom is at stake.

[Alpharetta]

7. I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing.

You are saying "there are no rules".

I am saying "we all decide what our own rules are".

You are saying moral decisions are not made in war. I am saying they are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. None of your examples are valid though

None are war decisions.

[Alpharetta]

13. a moral decision made during combat

if I give you an example of a life-and-death moral decision made during combat, you'll agree it is possible to make moral decisions in wartime?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I never said it wasn't possible

I said it wasn't very valuable for survival. Not to mention, if you believe every person inside that hospital is threatened regardless of your decision, doesn't that sort of throw the whole thing out the window? Wouldn't you do whatever is necessary, even if it means playing on your opponent's sympathies?

[Alpharetta]

15. I do not allow morality to be suspended during war

To answer your question, No I would not do "whatever is necessary".

I don't accept excuses for transporting weapons in ambulances, hiding forces in hospitals, or bombing either because the enemy "might" be hiding there.

I don't accept shooting reporters because the camera "might" look like a rocket launcher to the shooter.

I don't accept using a tank cannon against a hotel because shots "might" have come from there.

Sometimes your morality is more important than your survival or your country's supposed "freedom". When it comes to killing innocents or endangering them, I think the moral man should respect other lives more than his own.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. You're again missing the point

Assume those "innocents" are ALREADY ENDANGERED! If you do nothing, they will die. That's the position these people are in. What do you do in such a dire situation?

[Vladimir]

4. Michael Walzer

covers this issue extensively and brilliantly in his book Just and Unjust Wars. I would reccomend anyone interested in this to read it...

[dr.strangelove]

8. Walzer's book is excellent, however

this is a particularly difficult topic for all but the extreme pacifists to deal with.
I think the context of the invasion is important. If the invasion is a civil war, or a revolution, I'm not sure I would stoop to endangering children unless I felt the invaders were likely to harm children anyway. If the invaders sought to impose a fascist regime or otherwise displace American democracy, the price is high enough to endanger anyone.
I believe war and its associated bloodshed should be a last resort, but when an invader is at your doorstep, the resort was reached. Once you are at the point of war, I do believe that all is fair in war (though anyone who has been in a serious relationship knows that not all is fair in love).

[Vladimir]

12. I would never say that all is fair

but neither would I say that something is always off limits. Its a matter of context, and certainly the defender has a lot more leeway IMO than the agressor in terms of what is acceptable.

[NewHampshireDem]

10. Let me clarify ...

I meant that I might use ambulances/fire trucks, not hide weapons in hospitals or schools ... I would certainly draw the line there.

And thanks for the book recommendation.

[Walt Starr]

11. I would stop at NOTHING!!!

Including utilizing what I know about organic chemistry, biochemistry, and nuclear physics.

[Nadienne]

17. Proof that there are no weapons of mass destruction:

They didn't use them.

(If anyone here needed proof...)