Tuesday, January 22, 2008
LOST LIVES: DOES IT MATTER?
During the movie "The Lost Battalion" it is stated many times by the commanding officer that loss of lives are not important, the importance is the end result. Major Whittlesy on the other hand felt the loss of life mattered immensly. What do you feel? Is it the end result that matters or should loss of life be considered when setting up battle strategy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
I THINK LOSS OF LIFE SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED WHEN THINKING UP A BATTLE STRATEGY BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY MAKE THE END A BETTER RESULT. IF YOU THINK LOGICALLY, THINKING OF STRATEGIES THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE MOST LIVES AND SUBMIT YOUR OPPONENT TO DEFEAT WOULD ONLY MAKE THE WAR SHORTER IN THE LONG RUN AND HAVE A LESSER DEATH TOLL. THE ONLY REASON I WOULD THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD CHOOSE A RISKY BATTLE STRATEGY IS TO KEEP THE BATTLES SHORTER OR THEY ARE JUST TOO LAZY TO THINK OF A BETTER PLAN.
I BELIEVE THAT THE LOSS OF LIFE MATTERS A LOT. WE SHOULD GIVE IMMENCE AMOUNT OF CREDIT TO THE MEN WE LOST IN BATTLE. I KNOW THAT I MYSELF PROBABLY WOULDNT WANT TO GO INTO BATTLE, BUT IF I DID I WOULD WANT SOMEONE TO RECOGNIZE ME WITH SOME IMPORTANCE TO THE GREAT OUT COME. THE OUTCOME DOES MATTER, BUT HOW WE GOT THERE...MEANS THE MOST.
I definantly agree with gnalbandian. You would want to have more saved lives than dead ones because in the end your outcome may be even greater. People should take the time to think of great straegies rather than half thought ones that may risk more than they imagined.
I think that the loss of life does matter. All of those people who died, died hoping for the best end result possible. Without them fighting there could be no outcome for the battle.
I also think that loss of life should be considered when setting up strategies. In the future better strategies might lead to less men getting killed. No one can be reckless in thinking up a strategy just to get the battle over with faster. If they are reckless and don't fully think a plan out men might die for stupid reasons. If there is a good battle plan the outcome with most likely be in their favor. It makes the most sense to consider how men died previously when trying to think of a better battle plan. That way the same mistakes won't be repeated.
I agree with what Gary said in that good strategies will lead to a shorter war in the long run. Even if making a strategy might take some time it will be worth it in the end. If less men would die and the war outcome would be positive it makes sense to fully think of a well thought out plan.
I am kind of split on this one. On one hand the loss of lives is terrible! Its soooo sad that all of those men died because they had no food or supplies. On the other hand,those men were great men but they were in a war. It's not like deaths weren't expected. War is a big strategy game. If the end results in a victory, the death toll may not be a big deal. Its hard to say. It definately deals in morals.
I think in the case of "The Lost Battalion" they weren't given the time to think about the deaths that would occur. It was go! go! go! no time for "oh well so many men will die." Also, the whole firing-on-our-own-men thing didn't help. =/ Im sure they do consider death but sometimes it comes unexpectedly, its not predictable like the weather.
To agree with everyone so far, of course we want more lives than deaths. I wish we didn't have wars where people go die. It sucks.
Lennon, I definately agree that they should look at how the men died in previous battles. It all seems so fast-pace that if I were asked how they died I'd probably reply with "um...guns, and bayonettes...and grenades." Its the same everytime.
I think I might need some war experience before making these kind of assumptions though. O.O
I feel that the lives lost throughout a battle should definitely matter with great amounts of respect. Every step of the way that got a batallion or one side of a war to win the battle matters in the strategy. The end result is obviously the most key thing in a war, but the people who go put their lives on the line for their country should never be forgotten and is a very important aspect to be considered. After many wars have been fought, the total damage in money loss is accumulated to see how efficiently things were managed. But the truth is that the damage is much more because no amount of money can be compared to the life a person.
I agree with nicole in saying that if i ever found the courage to even step onto the battlefield of a war and happened to die for the country, I would want to be remembered. As would many people in this situation want to be honored. All the small steps that add up to final victory or achievement is what really matters.
I also agree with gary that in this situation in "The Lost Batallion," the strategy that was commanded by the general was not well thought out. It was as if he only wanted to reach his goal of victory as soon as possible, no matter what the consequences of his actions might be. In my opinon, it almost seems as if he wasn't characterized with any sympathy for what may happen to all the young men fighting out for him. He just ordered the batallion to do what he thought should be done without thinkning of the lives that were at stake of the young men who had so much of their future ahead of them.
I agree with everyone else as I think that preserving the lives of soldiers is the most important thing to think about when coming up with a stragety. like gary say'd, a stragety that keeps your soldiers alive and defeats the enemy is the best stragety to have. Also in the "lost Battalion" I can understand why they needed to attack the germans bacause if they did'nt we might have lost the war, but I think the commanding officer would have been alot smarter if he gave them rienforcments and supplys before he made them attack.
I'm split on this matter, in one way, lives lost is really important, but if you look at last wars, its always about who wins, not how many lives were lost. I recall when we were reading about the Civil War battles, that sometimes the winner had more fatalities then the loser. But morally, the amount of lives lost does indeed matter.
I agree also that the lost lives should never be forgotten. Anyone brave enough should be honored (dead or alive) and I think for the most part they are.
About the bad battle plan in "The Lost Battalion": Didn't they loose communication for a while? If your communication is lost and you get unexpectedly attacked its not so much the battle plan. It's the bad technology.
I think that loss of life is very important. I believe that loss of life should always be important when setting up battle strategy. If we don't care about loss of life then we will always lose thousands of people who would not have to die if we had a better strategy. I feel that the same result can be achieved many different ways and i think that way should be with strategy. If there is a possibility to win and save many people then why go any other way?
I think the loss of life matters when setting up a battle strategy. Life should never be tossed away carelessly and battles should be planned trying to perserve the lives of soldiers. Although there are times when the loss of life may be acceptable when considering how many lives it could save in the future. In the movie it seems that without the "lost Battalion" the war would have gone on for a much longer time. So it kinda makes it seem good that they did what they did.
Going with what Gary said, where a good strategy is better than going with a bad one. Well doesn't that pertain to other things than war? And how many times have commanding officers know that sending a battalion into war was going end with some loss of life? Every single time, its something that goes with war. Like how homework always leads to tests. Also, I think that every time a battle is set up, they think of how they are going to approach it. Not just, see those guys there? Lets shoot at them and not watch our own backs. Yes, the strategies aren't always the best, but I'm pretty sure someone thought they were good before executing them.
I think the loss of lives should be considered. I agree with Gary when he said that you should think logically and think of strategies that would save as many lives as possible and lead to a shorter war in the long run. I also agree with Jessica when she said she is kind of split on this one.
I agree with Colin I believe that loss of life during a war should be highly respected. If we do not respect these brave soldiers then who risk there lives to protect us then who will want to protect us anymore. I believe it takes a great deal of bravery and self respect to enter the military and defend the country so anyone who can accomplish that should be honored and respected.
Loss of life should be considered when setting up a battle strategy. The end result is not nearly as important as how many lives are lost. Men and women leave their spouses and their children behind to go fight for their country. You wouldn't any child to go up with out a parent, if the loss could have been prevented.
I think that the loss of of life should always be thought when thinking of a strategy in war. considering the more people that return home after the war causes less grieve and more of a victory. If I were to go in to battle I would want my life along with everyone else's lives to be thought of when a strategy is being planned out. I would want to be able to return home and celebrate the victorious win.
Yes loss of life is very important and everyone that dies in war should get some kind of recognition. The commander who said that is a professional soldier and believes what he did was correct. Now in some cases it might not have been, but he did what he had to do in order to save many more lives than the 500 that were sent into that battle. All of the men who died there are considered heroes and of course the leader of those troops is going to think it was wrong because he saw many of his men die
One must realize the differing point of views between Whitlesey and the general. The general states that he had twenty two thousand men he was in control of. While whitlesey was in charge of 500. I do believe that lying to a commanding officer is stupid but from the way the general was looking at the war it was necessary. Whitlesey does not see it as necessary because he is actually fighting with his men.
i can see both side of the situation. on one side if you are aggressive it may end up to be a shorter battle but the death toll will be much greater. if you play it aggressively then the lives lost are EXTREMELY important (live are important in the first place) but in the battle prospective when your on the attack the more people you have the greater your chances of a successful attack. the side that is on the defense has a greater chance of staying alive because they have protection and the knowing of where the enemy may attack from. (PART 1)
I agree with Gary, I think a good strategy would make a better end result and the fact that not so many people would die makes it a great way to go.
THINK OF THIS.. THE COMMANDING OFFICER ARGUED THAT HE LIVES WITH A GREATER BURDEN BECAUSE RATHER THAN BEING IN CHARGE OF 500 TROOPS HE HAD 22000 TO WORRY ABOUT. YES, ITS TRUE HE WAS IN CONTROL OF MANY MORE SOLDIERS BUT HE DID NOT LEAD THEM. HE DID NOT FIGHT ALONGSIDE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND EXPERIENCE WHAT ITS LIKE TO SEE THEM BIENG BLOWN TO PIECES IN FRONT OF HIS EYES. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT IS TOO GREAT A TASK TO ASK OF ANY MAN, IT STILL DOESNT EXPLAIN THE RECKLESSNESS OF HIS ACTIONS. THE FACT THAT HE HAD 22000 PEOPLE IN CONTROL AND THAT HE WAS CONTROLING THEM ALL FROM A SAFE DISTANCE PROVES THAT HE EITHER HAS NO IDEA OR HAS FORGOTTEN OF THE DEVISTATION OF LOSS. TO HIM ITS LIKE PLAYING A BIG GAME OF CHESS AND IF HE'S GOTTA SACRIFICE SOME PAWNS TO GET THE KING, SO BE IT.
I think that loss of life is definitely more important. It seems like the more lives lost would equal a worse outcome of war. Someone's life is much more valuable than winning or losing. It obviously takes a great deal of courage to fight in a war and those who do so should not be forgotten.
On the subject matter of life, you must put into perspective of a person's moral incentives and values.
Depending on how you look at the situation on either a 'micro' or 'macro' scale of the human population, the loss of people are always recognized in times of war. One must keep in mind that the General, seeing from where his position was, he approach the situation based on "its not how you start, but how you finished is what counts". Thus, leading him on to say "the loss of lives are not important, the importance is the end result."
Basiclly he took a 'macro' perspective on the whole outcome of the war and felt (at the time) that small numbers had little meaning. Surely he wasn't paying attention to his true moral values and didn't take into consideration of how close and personal Major Whittlesy was to the war, watching men die right before his very eyes.
Its all on the matter of how you look at things: On a large scale or small scale. Perspective,
perspective, perspective! Are you able to see through anothers' eyes? Can you truely recognize and acknowledge the fact that there are 2 sides of every story? And after each one is told, will you be able to throw in their differences of moral incentives and values? Can you form some sort of agreement or compromise and allow peace?
I think that the loss of life does matter to a citizen but if the commander has to win a war it only matters to an extent. If he is going to win the war by killing these men then in a war the number doesn't really matter but in a personal sense the number does matter. What I am trying to say is that in war you can't really think of lives as a personal thing you have to do what is right in actually winning the war.
I belive the loss of lives should be considered when making war strageties. At the end the outcome is what truly matters when your fighting for victory. The soldiers in "The Lost Battalion" were brave and deserve recognition for their courage.
In my opinion, the number of lives lost matters greatly. Its the general's objective to win the battle with as few lives lost as possible so yeah of course the number matters. Battle strategy of course is made up so that less lives will be spent, however the object is to win the war and when you're in a job like that you can't get too emotionally attached.
I agree with Derek in the fact that everyone who dies in battle should get recognition for their death. They died for their country and there is nothing more noble.
I also agree with Ryan, that although they want the lowest amount of casualties possible, there is a such thing as an acceptable loss under the circumstances. Let's be realistic, in war there's going to be casualties and the lesser the better, however in a general's point of view, i'm sure his ultimate goal is to win the battle in the best fashion possible.
I think that the loss of life is something to definately consider. When thinking up a battle strategy yes the outcome is important, but you would have think about your battalion of men and if they have a family or something. It would be nice to have won a battle and to also have most of your comrades left. If it is honestly a battle where you know that you'll probably lose a good amount of men then that is a different story, but if you let a bunch of men risking their lives die just because and you only care about the outcome.... I personnaly don't think I would agree with that.
i think that the loss of lives are important but then again theyre dying for their country, and the protection of thier people. i mean im not saying its a valid reason but think about it these men knew they could die when they signed up yet they still went and should great courage. i believe that if you truely belive in something and its worth fighting for then surely its worth dying for too. i believe these men were heroes they were willing to pay the ultimate price for thier coutries' well-being.
I KNOW THAT GENERALS DON'T LIKE TO THINK ABOUT STRATEGIES THAT WILL REDUCE DEATH TOLL BECAUSE THAT MIGHT MESS UP WITH THEIR STRATEGY. I ALSO KNOW THAT RISKY BATTLE STRATEGIES ARE USUALLY THOUGHT UP SO THERE WILL BE LESS BATTLES ENDING IN A REDUCED TOTAL DEATH COUNT. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY MORE FACTORS TO WINNING WARS THAT I DO NOT KNOW OF. BUT AFTER A WHILE STRESS AND FEAR OF LOSING ONE'S JOB OR EVEN SHEER BOREDOM AND ANXIETY MIGHT LEAD A GENERAL TO MAKE HASTY DECISIONS AGAINST HIS BETTER JUDGEMENT. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON WHY BATTLE STRATEGIES ARE THOUGHT UP AS THEY ARE, FOR LESS STRESS ON THE GENERAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS. TO FIX THIS, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE GENERAL TO LEAD A WAR, MAYBE A TEAM OF FIVE, SO OUR STRATEGIES IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE MORE THOUGHT OUT AND WOULD PRESERVE MORE OF OUR SOLDIERS LIVES. AT LEAST THATS WHAT I THINK. TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK.
I do agree that every life matters. Whitlesey knew this too, but if they werent in the middle of the german force then the war would have most likely lasted longer. The longer a war goes on the more lives are lost. I do agree also that we must remember the couragous men who had the humility to die for our freedom. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the conquering of it.
one word....BALANCE.
In response to people saying that they need to make better strategies.
I agree with the fact that they should make better strategies and if they took the time with them they could. There is one problem though, people don't always have time. Here in our daily lives we speed through things in order to save time. Imagine being in war, time has a completely different meaning.
It is difficult to make a strategy where you get to decide how many lives your going to lose BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
Lives matter a lot, but in order to complete a goal in war lives will, 99% of the time, be taken and a as soldiers they know that, even if they didn't volunteer.
In the case of the lost battalion, the artillery strikes were horribly placed, but humans constantly make mistakes, some have more NOTICEABLE results than others.
I believe the end result should be appreciated but the cost of lives should also be remembered. "war isn't faought with weapons, it is the souls of men..." Gen. Macarthur
Post a Comment