To End All Wars

[A Karenina]

I saw this movie on cable recently. It was so powerful, and I continue to think about it. Has anyone else seen it? What were your thoughts?



It's the true story of WWII POWs in Thailand, forced to build the Burmese railroad. It showed the brutality of the Japanese, and the fact that the captors broke every Geneva convention ruling in existence. It puts the Iraqi prison tortures in a new perspective (still not right, still punishable, but not the worst thing happening, either).



What is so awesomely compelling is the relationship between the POWs, the conflict between differing ideologies. One group was Christian, and felt they should follow God's laws while another group was very militant and felt they should kill their captors and escape.



The warring ideologies is what I hope we can discuss here.

[Der Wulf]

A Karenina wrote:

What is so awesomely compelling is the relationship between the POWs, the conflict between differing ideologies. One group was Christian, and felt they should follow God's laws while another group was very militant and felt they should kill their captors and escape.

The warring ideologies is what I hope we can discuss here.
Can't remember its name, but there is another movie about a female orchestra imprisoned by the nazi's, much the same argument.



I think the core issue is the triumph of the human spirit. Don't think there is a definative right or wrong because it has to be resolved individually on the basis of personal skills and knowledge, then modified in the best interest of the group to fit that particular circumstance. Truth is that usually both ways are "right" and accomodation rather than intellect or strength must drive the decision. Socially and emotionally satisfying, but IMO potentially disasterous. :yh_think

[gmc]

The Japanese never signed the Geneva conventions although in 1942 they did promise to abide by the terms.

The issues are still relevant in today's warfare.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... icle=26767

Among his past actions that concern us most, Gonzales wrote to the president on Jan. 25, 2002, advising him that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict then under way in Afghanistan. The reasoning Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk and would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions.”

Perhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. These changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq] and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops.


One of the problems with ignoring things like the Geneva Convention you lose any moral high ground when your enemy does the same. Your enemy may use torture does that mean you should and if you do are you not just as bad?

[A Karenina]

Der Wulf wrote: ...then modified in the best interest of the group to fit that particular circumstance. You've hit the crux of it here. What is the best interest of the group? Survival? Living and probably dying according to a specific set of values? It's very difficult, and so I agree with your statement that there is no definitive answer.

Of course, these are the kinds of questions that interest me most.



Der Wulf wrote: Truth is that usually both ways are "right" and accomodation rather than intellect or strength must drive the decision. Socially and emotionally satisfying, but IMO potentially disasterous. :yh_thinkI'm not sure I get your meaning here. Could I please ask for more of your thoughts on this? Thanks.

[A Karenina]

gmc wrote: The Japanese never signed the Geneva conventions although in 1942 they did promise to abide by the terms.
I'm not sure if you're implying that by only promising, not actually signing, they are somehow exempt? I'm just asking - I know it's phrased badly, and may appear aggressive on the first read.



gmc wrote: The issues are still relevant in today's warfare.
I totally agree.



gmc wrote: One of the problems with ignoring things like the Geneva Convention you lose any moral high ground when your enemy does the same. Your enemy may use torture does that mean you should and if you do are you not just as bad?
Just as bad?...If we compare our goodness or badness to any other country/person/set of values than our own, then we've already lost. Here's where I get my hard edges...We either believe in the intent of the Geneva convention - to treat prisoners humanely - or we don't. It doesn't matter what our enemy does. We need to judge ourselves based on what we do.



I feel that the question is not "are we just as bad?" but more along of the lines of "Are we behaving according to our values?"



However! What our enemy does, as well as why he's our enemy in the first place, is crucial information. Chopping off the heads of people who are not even soldiers, and even those who have dedicated thier lives to helping your people...well, this is a brutal, unfeeling, and unjust enemy. What's it mean? Expect and prepare for the worst humanity has to offer. It does not excuse anything happening in the Iraqi prisons.



I do feel that comparisons are important. It has nothing to do with justifying anyone's actions...but placing an event in perspective allows us to make appropriate decisions. Had we crucified Iraqis, or committed any of the atrocities shown in the movie I mentioned, then the outrage and the punishments would have been even more severe. Rightly so.



I also feel that the American public has made their apology by way of public outrage, and expecting punishments to take place. We don't need to feel ashamed or be reminded of this every time the subject of torture comes up. We agree with world opinion and we did what we could - we did the right thing.



Please don't take that as me being ultra-sensitive to attacks on my country. It's not the case.

[Der Wulf]

A Karenina wrote: I'm not sure I get your meaning here. Could I please ask for more of your thoughts on this? Thanks.
"Truth is that usually both ways are "right" and accomodation rather than intellect or strength must drive the decision. Socially and emotionally satisfying, but IMO potentially disasterous"



Assume that the none of the competing ideals is absolutely and exclusively "right", and that either is capable of producing a technically satisfactory, but for some of the individuals, culturally untenable result.



Each faction within the group will have it's own strengths, skills, and ideas. A negotiated settlement that accomadates fundamentally different and often incongruous elements is usually deemed to be socially progressive, and politically correct. The sad truth however is that the net result often serves to dilute rather than enhance the group's ability's.



A better solution often, is to carefully define the group's ultimate objective [in this case survival] by the will of the majority, then carefully, unemotionaly, examine the alternatives. Making the final decision in a dispassionate, intellectual manner.



BTW: Your response about the Geneva Convention was magnificent :yh_hugs

I would add only that the convention is a contract, not a sacred text. It's relavence is conditioned on obligations required of BOTH sides. To pretend otherwise is at best pollyannish, at worst insane.

Moral obligations are another matter, it is within the province of conscience, both individual and collective.



In the movie "Shenondoah Valley" the pacifist Quaker when confronted by a bad guy intent on harming his family, pointed his rifle at the offender and said " I wish thee no harm brother, but I am about to shoot where thou art standing" would'nt it be great if we could script real life, and confront real evil so adroitly. :-6

[gmc]

posted by A Karenina

'm not sure if you're implying that by only promising, not actually signing, they are somehow exempt? I'm just asking - I know it's phrased badly, and may appear aggressive on the first read


I was just being pedantic, they never formally agreed to abide by the conventions so it's a bit unfair to condemn them for not abiding by conventions they never subscribed to. They also had concentration camps where they tested biological weapons on chinese prisoners.

There have always been "conventions of warfare" throughout history and condemnation of those who violated them bearing in mond history is often written by the winners Warfare brings out the best and the worst in humanity there were despicable acts on both sides that are easy to condemn from the safe distance of 60 years.

In Germany the British were destroying cities with deliberately created firestorms an act that is condemned now but at the time I doubt you would have found many of the ordinary British people had much sympathy for the civilians being deliberately targeted. If we (the British that is) had had nuclear weapons and the Germans did not do you really think we would have hesitated for very long to use them? We didn't use chemical weapons because germany had their own, one of the first things Churchill did was to warn hitler that if he used them we would, Hitler was gassed in ww1 and knew we were more advanced in the field than they. Total war is just that, total war.

posted by a karenina

Please don't take that as me being ultra-sensitive to attacks on my country. It's not the case.


I didn't think you were referring to exclusively american pow's since the majority were probably british or australian. The link was because it it relevant to the current war in Iraq and the policies being adopted towards terrorist suspects. It's relevant. It's kind of hard to talk about this without the US coming in to it somewhere so ignore any feeling anything i say is specifically anti american. In truth I care more about what we are up to than the US

In the UK there is a debate raging because the high court has told the government that it is illegal to hold foreign nationals indefinitely without trial. Our govt is responding by moving to extend the legislation to UK nationals so they can be held indefinitely without trial. It is a fundamental basis of our freedom that you cannot be arrested and held on suspicion alone. We were the first country in the world to have a habeus corpus act passed primarily to control the power of the king to arrest who he liked. king/government the principle is the same if you want to live in a free country then it is open to abuse, that does not mean you should allow yourself to become less free. If you allow one person to be arrested because you think suspect they may be plotting to bring down the government where do you draw a line? You can attend a meeting of a militant group before you appreciate their true nature, does that make you a terrorist? They are also tryimgb to bring in ID cards and other daft ideas that will do nothing to diminish the threat. They haven't gone as far as to say it is K to torture prisoners I would like to think that is because the resulting condemnation would embarass even them, on the other hand they are not openly criticising the americans about guantanemo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto ... 51,00.html

you said it beautifully

Just as bad?...If we compare our goodness or badness to any other country/person/set of values than our own, then we've already lost. Here's where I get my hard edges...We either believe in the intent of the Geneva convention - to treat prisoners humanely - or we don't. It doesn't matter what our enemy does. We need to judge ourselves based on what we do.

I feel that the question is not "are we just as bad?" but more along of the lines of "Are we behaving according to our values?"


It's a moral dilema we present to our soldiers in Iraq, if they get it wrong they are condemned out of hand. On the other hand is you have a leadership that says it is OK not to respect the rights of these people then is there not tacit condoning of their actions? At the Nuremburg trials the precedent was established that it was not a defence to claim you were following orders and that each indivudual was culpable for his or her actions.

So the abuse at abu grahb (can't remember the spelling) was it a few individuals that should have known better or were they part of a culture that condoned what they did and the mistake was in taking pictures, that rather suggests they saw nothing wrong in what they did and did not expect censure from higher command.



posted by der wulf

Assume that the none of the competing ideals is absolutely and exclusively "right", and that either is capable of producing a technically satisfactory, but for some of the individuals, culturally untenable result.

Each faction within the group will have it's own strengths, skills, and ideas. A negotiated settlement that accomadates fundamentally different and often incongruous elements is usually deemed to be socially progressive, and politically correct. The sad truth however is that the net result often serves to dilute rather than enhance the group's ability's.

A better solution often, is to carefully define the group's ultimate objective [in this case survival] by the will of the majority, then carefully, unemotionaly, examine the alternatives. Making the final decision in a dispassionate, intellectual manner.


It's an age old question but what would you do in those circumstances in order to survive.

What if your survival depended on getting away-escaping-but you knew that you doing so would mean sanctions being taken against those that were left (I.E. some would be executed which was the case) but staying would mean your death, what would you do? Thankfully I never have and hopefully never will have to find an answer because in truth I don't know what I would do, I think i would incline towards getting out



I tend to wonder off topic a bit but a blast from the past, brief autobiography of Bomber Harris, thought this quote might be of interest.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ai ... harris.htm

When World War One started in August 1914, Harris joined the 1st Rhodesia Regiment. He fought against the Germans in German South West Africa but returned to Britain in 1915 where he joined the Royal Flying Corps. In 1916, Harris qualified as a fighter pilot and joined 44 Squadron in France. It is said that what he witnessed in France - the futility of trench warfare - shaped his views on aerial bombing in future years. Before the war had ended, he had taken control of 44 Squadron. In 1919, Harris became a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force. In this capacity, he served throughout the British Empire (India, Iraq, Iran and the Middle East) during the 1920's and the early 1930's. During this time, the RAF used bombing raids against tribes people in Iraq who had rebelled against British rule. Some of these raids included the use of poison gas and delayed action bombs. Some in the RAF were appalled by this (Air Commodore Lionel Charlton resigned his commission regarding this) but Harris said:

"The only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand."

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Der Wulf]

First, a bit of "housecleaning"

[QUOTE=gmc]

What if your survival depended on getting away-escaping-but you knew that you doing so would mean sanctions being taken against those that were left (I.E. some would be executed which was the case) but staying would mean your death, what would you do? Thankfully I never have and hopefully never will have to find an answer because in truth I don't know what I would do, I think i would incline towards getting out

[QUOTE]

Interesting, but off topic. we're discussing group action in the interest of the group, not individual action against the interest of the group.

[QUOTE=gmc]

So the abuse at abu grahb (can't remember the spelling) was it a few individuals that should have known better or were they part of a culture that condoned what they did

[QUOTE]

On topic, but I think it's obvious that this bunch of misfits were acting in their own interest's for self gratification.

[QUOTE=gmc]

In the UK there is a debate raging because the high court has told the government that it is illegal to hold foreign nationals indefinitely without trial. Our govt is responding by moving to extend the legislation to UK nationals so they can be held indefinitely without trial. It is a fundamental basis of our freedom that you cannot be arrested and held on suspicion alone. We were the first country in the world to have a habeus corpus act passed primarily to control the power of the king to arrest who he liked. king/government the principle is the same if you want to live in a free country then it is open to abuse, that does not mean you should allow yourself to become less free. If you allow one person to be arrested because you think suspect they may be plotting to bring down the government where do you draw a line?

[QUOTE]

Precisely on point.



I posit that there is, at polar points, good and evil. [not to be confused with religion] Rules and ideals like the Geneva convention, the US constitution, etc. provide the guidance for us to live within a safe area of the good/evil spectrum. In my opinion, there are times when threatened by great evil, that it is morally responsible, and necessary to temporarily suspend normal conventions in support of the greater good.

[capt_buzzard]

We were told so many times that World War 1 was the war to end all wars, they were wrong. WW11. was just as bad, if not much worse. God help us all as the dooms day clock is now set at 10 minutes to midnight.

[gmc]

posted by der wulf

Interesting, but off topic. we're discussing group action in the interest of the group, not individual action against the interest of the group.

Not really off topic in that how you answer that question would determine which group you support. A group is a collection of individuals.

The issue was not just whether you should follow god's laws or try and kill your captors and escape it was also that your escape would affect those left behind. Any escape attempt if you were caught resulted in your execution, if you were not caught it also resulted in others also being executed to discourage further attempts. That is what happened in japanese POW camps.

In those circumstances what would you do? If your survival meant others were executed what decision would you take. Whether an individual or a group the moral dilema is the same. Except it is far from simple as staying might mean you all die and you delay the inevitable by not trying yet your action as a group or an individual would mean the deaths of people you know the very next day.

On topic, but I think it's obvious that this bunch of misfits were acting in their own interest's for self gratification.


True but given the culture they come from why did they make no attempt to conceal their actions which suggests they had no reason to believe it would be disaspproved off or they were just stupid.

posted by der wulf

I posit that there is, at polar points, good and evil. [not to be confused with religion] Rules and ideals like the Geneva convention, the US constitution, etc. provide the guidance for us to live within a safe area of the good/evil spectrum. In my opinion, there are times when threatened by great evil, that it is morally responsible, and necessary to temporarily suspend normal conventions in support of the greater good.


Yes total war is just that, pretending otherwise is sophistry. On the other hand once you have captured an enemy rather than just kill them then you need to decide how to treat them. If you decide that they are non people and not entitled to fair treatment then just kill them. If you capture someone who may or may not be a combatant then if you decide they are not entitled to any consideration and torture can be used to extract information then you get back to the old dilemma of is a little wrong or evil justified to prevent a greater, and by doing so do you not become like that which you fight against? Personally I think yes.

It's perhaps off topic but what I object to about guantanimo and what my own government is trying to do-I'm not an american so really I'm not too bothered about what happens there it's your problem-is the government taking upon itself the right to imprison people without trial for an indefinite period just on suspicion. No politician should be given that kind of power, the courts should decide guilt or innocence after a fair trial not politicians. Despite all the hype our democracy is only at risk if we let politicians use that as an excuse. If we go that route the terrorists have won.

Incidentally A Karenina what was the name of the film?

[A Karenina]

The name of the film is To End All Wars. It was based on a book written by one of the survivors, last name of Gordon. There was only one American in the group, played by Kiefer Sutherland. Everyone else was Scottish, as you said, gmc.

I am in the big leagues with you guys. Both of you are deep thinkers, and I'm completely wrapped up into what you're saying. I also want to think on it more before I respond too much.

It's true that ideals can come off as both PollyAnna-ish and insane, at the same time. I read myself at times and the practical part of me winces. But no matter what happens, I always come back to those same thoughts. I've thought about this for years...Ideals versus realities.



I'm one of those optimistic people who prefers to live in a gold-edged world. My past has not allowed me that luxury, as if life is honing me for something I can't see yet. Not greatness, nothing like that. Let's just say that I see both the gold-edged world and the harshness at the same time, and that I choose the brighter side of things.



Values are pesky, demanding things. We can never quite live up to our own values. Reality creeps in through our own weaknesses, "failures", temptations, reactions, extreme emotions, etc. Still, we try to keep our eye on the goal, we keep pursuing an ideal, and every time we get a bit closer to it, we improve. When we do so as a group, our society improves. It's crazy to think we're ever gonna get exactly where we want to be - who is perfect? But that doesn't release us from the effort of trying. We are separated into two levels - where we are, and where we want to be.



At the same time, we have extreme situations pushing us to our limits and beyond. The war on terrorism and our actions/reactions to that is one example while the movie I mentioned is another.



We are thrust into situations where the ideals still hang there, golden, but seemingly unreachable. How do you fight an enemy that has no respect for humanity at all? Do you lose your own respect in order to win? Do you stubbornly cling to your values, regardless of the cost?



I think we do both. We are still separated into two levels, but the separation is more extreme. We fight like mad to find a middle ground, to somehow bring ourselves back together again. This is both internal and external.



So, on one hand we say that we must sacrifice some things in order to gain another thing. This is true. On the other hand, we say that we must continue to follow our own morals (like the right to trial). This is also true...and that's what makes it so terrible. We have to choose what is a higher truth, what takes precedence.



To do this for ourselves is hard enough. To do this for an entire group is mind boggling.



The only way out that I see is to find completely new ways of thinking. Thoughts so far?