• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Believe Covert Warfare Is Ethical?

Do You Believe Covert Warfare Is Ethical?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Thanks. Learn something new every day.


:) One of my sayings is, if you're not improving, you're falling behind. And if you can't say how you are improving, you probably aren't. :)
 
I would be against assassinations of foreign heads of state, but otherwise, yeah covert ops have distinct advantages. If you can achieve your objectives with very small scale covert ops as opposed to very overt military actions, then covert is a far better choice.
 
1. Covert wars are unconstitutional

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

2. They are not covert to the people being attacked, they are mainly covert to the USA's residents and tax payers, and often, authorized policy makers.

3. Because they are not openly debated, they are usually immoral mistakes that result in serious blowback later (as seen in the muddle east today). With covert war there is no requirement that our leaders prove the necessity of the war, so these wars may simply be about corporate interests, political maneuvers, petty ego clashes etc. (even more so than official wars)

4. It should not be the USA's role to be the world's policeman. The cold war and the "war on terror" were/are largely unnecessary wastes of resources and lives.

To deal with terrorist type threats, a law enforcement/espionage type model is most appropriate, not bombing whole villages with drones.
 
Ollie never rolled on his boss. I at least respect that.
Ollie North is a hero and Obama did a good job in Libya.


You mean spies? Spies are good. Three little birds, singin' sweet songs is where it's at.
 
Well, ethical and necessary are two different things. Would it have been ethical to assanate Osama Bin Laden before 9/11? No. But it sure seems it would have been a great idea.
 
2. They are not covert to the people being attacked, they are mainly covert to the USA's residents and tax payers, and often, authorized policy makers.
Lol.

Well, they are up until the job is executed. The idea of covert operations is they won't know what hit them till it does.

Do you actually think the US should cease all covert operations? Come on, man. Obviously there are downsides, but anything and everything has its' downsides.
 
Of course it isn't ethical.

Warfare itself isn't ethical must less covert assassinations or what have you.
 
that is why I have not voiced my opionon, I have to think it through. I am leaning toward if it is ethical (debateable at best) to kill someone in an all out war, it is also ethical to drone their sorry butts in the middle of the night. What is the ethical differnece?
Of course it isn't ethical.

Warfare itself isn't ethical must less covert assassinations or what have you.
 
Great thread. I voted other. My belief is that we the People don't have a choice. If they make me king I'd outlaw covert warfare across the globe.
 
how bout all war?
Great thread. I voted other. My belief is that we the People don't have a choice. If they make me king I'd outlaw covert warfare across the globe.
 
that is why I have not voiced my opionon, I have to think it through. I am leaning toward if it is ethical (debateable at best) to kill someone in an all out war, it is also ethical to drone their sorry butts in the middle of the night. What is the ethical differnece?

Being ethical means it is morally right....

It is never morally correct to kill innocent people. No matter what the warfare...there are usually innocent people killed (collateral damage) at some point.

No innocent life lost is ethical. It never is and never will be.

Ethics go out the window when talking about warfare of any kind.
 
Yes. If that threat is posed to be a sudden and proven threat to the home country.
 
Now there is a war. Unless she is really the boss and you just play king when you aint at home there is gonna be trouble in the kingdom.
Thanks, I'll need all the help I can get. First, we have to convince my wife I should be king.
 
War isn't ethical.
 
Replying to OP: If it's saving American lives (or innocent lives of whatever nationality) then I'm all for it although I don't know that I would call it ethical and I think it would all come down to the particular situation.
 
Ethics, in self defense both on a national and a personalized level, are of little importance to me outside of their own impact on that defense.

I think willingly taking anything off the table when it's not clearly and verifiably...or at least believably...taken off the table from the other side is foolish and irresponsible.

In general, I think it's beneficial, in terms of your own defense, to seem "better" than the enemy. This likely means both not going to the same extent in some cases when it's unnecessary AND in other cases taking action and taking great care to wash your hands of official oversight of said action.

However I think often times its necessary, and reasonable, for a country to take "unethical" actions in the name of protecting. But it must always way the risk vs reward of all the potential variables involved in the action.
 
Only if it is self defense. I can see Afgahanasn possibly being a threat, years ago. Iraq I dont think ever attacked our borders.
It is always ethical to kill your enemies before they can kill you.
 
It is always ethical to kill your enemies before they can kill you.

Doesn't that depend on the way your go about killing your enemies? I mean we could nuke all of our enemies to kingdom come. But, that wouldn't be very ethical, would it?
 
Doesn't that depend on the way your go about killing your enemies? I mean we could nuke all of our enemies to kingdom come. But, that wouldn't be very ethical, would it?

Wouldn't be very smart either, ever hear of something called a nuclear winter? Besides, just because someone lives in a enemy country, doesn't make them an enemy. Non-enemies and innocents are generally referred to as "collateral damage" if they get killed and that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Capturing an enemy and torturing him/her to death would be not be ethical. Torture is never ethical. Just killing them is ok though, as long as you don't use torture, since it is the torture that is not ethical. A 1000 yard shot with a .50 Cal sniper rifle is ok though. Even using a drone is ok, as long as you can minimize collateral damage.
 
Only if it is self defense. I can see Afgahanasn possibly being a threat, years ago. Iraq I dont think ever attacked our borders.

He did however sponsor and train terrorist, PLO and others, that did attack and kill members of our military and attacked our allies. He also shot at our troops and locked up our aircraft with anti-aircraft systems regularly. He was definitely and enemy.

Always better to get them before they get to our borders, not after. Ask Clinton, oh, wait, he didn't kill them before they attacked in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom