[gunsnroses]

I have been thinking, whether the end justifies the means or the means justifies the end....your views plsss

later

[KnowItAll]

Depends on the end game and the means used.

[gunsnroses]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

Depends on the end game and the means used.

Elaborate plsss...need answers with some details or example.....

[KnowItAll]

Jeez .. I'm not going to help you with your home work for your ethics class.

But here's a question .. if you want to eradicate poverty, would you wipe out a continent or two?

[gunsnroses]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

Jeez .. I'm not going to help you with your home work for your ethics class.

But here's a question .. if you want to eradicate poverty, would you wipe out a continent or two?

hey KIA, I am not getting help with my homework....its been looooooooooong since I needed any such help....and it'll be a loooooooong bfore I need any help to give...to my kids...

well, I am in double mind, thats y I put up this thread.....just to know what ppl think of this....I am counter-arguing with myself on this.....

laterzzz

[climber07]

This decision will likely very much depend on your position in the particular situation (what side of the coin you're on) and ultimately how you feel you would be personally impacted by the means (it is the question that ultimately burns in the dark deep portions of our selfish instincts). For example, we either selfishly want to survive (perhaps at a large cost to others) or to achieve some ultimate "goal" but at a cost of suffering and pain caused to many. There is no right answer for every situation.

And just to spice things up a bit....

Being an aspiring despot , I would say in some cases the end justifies the means (as long as you don't document, televise (or broadcast) and personify the means). (i.e. when fighting wars......don't turn them into TV shows and be prepared to accept the collateral damage).

[gunsnroses]

Originally Posted by climber07

This decision will likely very much depend on your position in the particular situation (what side of the coin you're on) and ultimately how you feel you would be personally impacted by the means (it is the question that ultimately burns in the dark deep portions of our selfish instincts). For example, we either selfishly want to survive (perhaps at a large cost to others) or to achieve some ultimate "goal" but at a cost of suffering and pain caused to many. There is no right answer for every situation.

And just to spice things up a bit....

Being an aspiring despot , I would say in some cases the end justifies the means (as long as you don't document, televise (or broadcast) and personify the means). (i.e. when fighting wars......don't turn them into TV shows and be prepared to accept the collateral damage).

So you agree with George Bush on his war on Iraq and possibly on Iran???

[KnowItAll]

A question like this is not about passing judgement on others, it is about justifying your actions to yourself.

If someone tried to kill your father, would you go after them in a rage and do anything within your means to defend him and your families honor?

Why do family feuds persist?

Both of these might give you reasons for why there is a war in Iraq.

Iran -- well lets just say, someone needs a distraction.

[climber07]

Originally Posted by gunsnroses

So you agree with George Bush on his war on Iraq and possibly on Iran???

No, I think George W. Bush is a dumb-ass!

The war in Iraq was f*ed up from the very begging and shouldn't have happened. Wars should ALWAYS be the last possible option!!!!! War in Iraq has trully demonstated the weakness of the US intelligence community (especially the CIA). The over-reliance on technological intelligence and the lack of human assets has caused this disaster. In the right turn of events a strong opposition group would have been long financed and developed and an opportune ('earthquake, car accident or and assasination) would have turned the better course of events. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, by winning the Cold War the US has lost the safety and the stability of the world and the luxery of knowing your enemy.

Having said that, what pisses me off more than anything else is when things are done half-assed (either commit fully (100%) or go home). If you commit to going to war and have crossed that line, then by all means stop all the PC bullshit and fight a war. Don't send the stupid embedded reporters, stop the intelligence leaks, and most importantly keep the goddamn politicians away from interfering with the work of the generals.

Wars are won by soldiers and lost by politicians. Wars aren't pretty, wars aren't "made for TV dramas", and as sad and horrible as it is innocent people die in wars (including women and children). Once you cross the Rubicon however, there is no looking back and there must be swift execution of objectives.

[gunsnroses]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

A question like this is not about passing judgement on others, it is about justifying your actions to yourself.

If someone tried to kill your father, would you go after them in a rage and do anything within your means to defend him and your families honor?

Why do family feuds persist?

Both of these might give you reasons for why there is a war in Iraq.

Iran -- well lets just say, someone needs a distraction.

So becos GWBush sr. had lost the war with saddam hussein, his son avenged that??