Post #11,751
10/4/01 11:50:13 AM
|
Courage, cowardice, and rashness.
[link|http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hibbs100401.shtml|Thomas Hibbs invokes Aristotle] to cut through the semantic confusion about virtue, and lack thereof, ours vs theirs.
I'm for lobbing missiles any day, if it gets the job done. If it doesn't, I'll risk my life for the sake of civilization. But only if it's necessary. I know what courage is, and isn't.
Say, can UAV's be used in a kamikaze style attack? Say the operator realizes his bird has just been disabled and is going to crash. He could try to aim it at a target of opportunity...
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,759
10/4/01 12:18:32 PM
|
I would refine his definition some
"Noble cause" is so easily re-defined based on what side you are on. I would have to say that bravery is risking one's own safety/life to ensure the safety/life of others especially those less able. Those rescue workers and citizens of New York that helped and in some cases gave their lives to even attempt to save others; those passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsilvania; those were the brave people in this situation. America may not be necissarily "brave" by this definition, but it is our intention to keep the killing down to those that have and would kill many more innocent people. I think that is all that can be done in this situation.
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #11,782
10/4/01 1:58:54 PM
|
misguided effort
There seems to be misguided effort to redefine courage and cowardice so that we can call the terrorists cowards. The appeal of this is obvious, since we want to call what we do courageous and what they do as cowardly.
That the terrorist leaders didn't publicly associate their name with the attack could be described as cowardly, but to try and describe the individual terrorists as cowards is an attempt to redefine the word. By the conventional meaning of the word they were courageous, but the conventional meaning says only that one knowingly risked death or great harm it says nothing about the cause being good or just.
You could describe the overall American military strategy of sitting hundreds of miles away and lobbing cruise missiles as being cowardly, but that is not the same as saying that the individual soldiers where cowards. I expect the vast majority of the soldiers would be quite courageous if challenged directly.
Jay
|
Post #11,786
10/4/01 2:07:43 PM
|
Mind you, I never called them cowards either
Just pointing out that they were not what I'd define as "brave". Actually I think it difficult to call any country brave or cowardly. It's something that, like you point out, should only be used to describe individual people.
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #11,821
10/4/01 5:42:43 PM
|
From another angle
Bravery / courage - is acting.. even though you *are* afraid - ask millions of ex-GIs et al.
I don't know what to call: acting under religious conviction of the level which devalues all life and all society - for one's personal fantasy of a God who wants You to ____. Sociopathy is one partial-definition. Others overlap. There is no 'fear' - because there is no thought or feeling - mechanical action after those have been purged.
Nothing about courage, bravery IMhO.
A.
|
Post #11,838
10/4/01 9:33:36 PM
|
Remember that these folks were dead well before...
the collisions of planes into buildings. They died when a commitment was made and they became heroes of the glorious cause. Only the reward awaits. As you say, actions become mechanical and no fear is involved.
Alex
Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. -- Euripides
|
Post #12,063
10/6/01 11:42:06 AM
|
War Not A Sport
"You could describe the overall American military strategy of sitting hundreds of miles away and lobbing cruise missiles as being cowardly"
You could describe it this way, if your intent was to provide anti-American propaganda. Once the decision has been made to go to war, the objective is to kill as many of the opposition's combatants as you can with minimal loss of your troops and noncombatants. I see nothing remotely cowardly in using the US's technological edge.
War is not a sport, there is no requirement to give terrorists a "sporting chance" to kill US troops.
This is NOT me advocating using nuclear or bio-weapons since they create too many civilian casualties.
|
Post #12,069
10/6/01 12:51:29 PM
|
I agree
I agree, once we at are at war.
What I was referring to was the US's habit of using cruise missiles as a political tool against countries that can't strike back.
Jay
|
Post #12,086
10/6/01 5:19:26 PM
|
Re: I agree
What I was referring to was the US's habit of using cruise missiles as a political tool against countries that can't strike back. Not to mention the problem of avoiding the wrong targets, like the asprin factory and empty terrorist camps. Who knows how empty the sky is
In the place of a fallen tower.
Who knows how quiet it is in the home
Where a son has not returned.
-- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
|
Post #12,085
10/6/01 5:14:12 PM
|
Nit.
Hi Dave,
Once the decision has been made to go to war, the objective is to kill as many of the opposition's combatants as you can with minimal loss of your troops and noncombatants.
I don't think so.
War is politics through other means. It's objective is to force the other side to concede to your political demands. Killing millions of soldiers isn't the aim - it's to get the leadership to change their policies to your liking.
Of course, you're right that you want to minimize losses on your own side.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
