But if they did, it would be justified under the current reasoning put forward by Insane, correct?

No.

Because all actions towards attaining victory in war are permissible.

The Nazi's weren't insane.

Okay.

It's an easy copout but it's not true.

One should confuse insanity with villiany. There are plenty of sane and rational people who have no problems justifying the worst acts imaginable.

The Nazis were loyal to an evil ideology.

I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation. Best of luck.

The lesson of the Nazis isn't that insane people can come to power, or that evil can win. It's that otherwise good people can be convicted it's in the "greater good" to commit truly horrible acts @Bookworm .

That's fair.

Pretty much.

Going back to Vietname do you guys know about the Meili massacre?

It was a slaughter of women, children, and civilian men by US troops. They weren't raised wrong, or an abortion, it was a total break down of civilization.

If these soldiers were in any other situation with an exception of a very few they would have been honest hard working citizens, but were drug down into a pit that allowed them to become avatars of the worst aspects of humanity.

@Bookworm Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war. can you quote me on saying that i by any means agree with that. i said it happens not that i in any way condone breaking oaths

i said its neccesary to obtain victory in war

you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning.

The post I was referring to.

Which in hindsight, I realize is less you claiming it is acceptable and more you saying that people do so.

So, then, Insane, what is and is not to be condoned in the attainment of victory in warfare?

warfare is in itself taking something that is not yours by force. it dishonors conversation and logic its leads the victory of he who is strongest not he who is right

warfare is in itself anti human

Warfare is the ultimate form of conflict resolution. You could even say it is the ultimate form of economic distribution.

A resource is allocated to those willing to pay the highest price for it. Warfare is saying "I am willing to kill, and die, and so is everyone on my side for this."

warfare doesnt distribute economics as the person with the economic advantage has a way higher change to end on top

I never said it distributed resources equitably.

then how does it in your opinion distribute recources outside of a nation

How does war distribute resources?

The victor of the war gets the resources, on account of being able to dictate terms.

and that is, in your view, the ultimate form of economic distribution?

In that death is the highest price a man can pay, yes.

yes but the person wielding the most resources at the start of the war has an advantage wouldnt "distributing those recourses" be more like claiming them?

if a man pays with his life, he gets no resources in return. Whoever is leading him to his death does.

thats a very good point

Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.

Just because his life is the greatest thing he can give up personally doesn't mean that's all he cares about.

@Bookworm is there any honor in sending people to a higher change of death in exchange for resources?

Inherently? I don't think so. But there certainly can be, yes.

explain further?