Wands and Wizards...Again

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183616

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Steve:
> < HUGE SNIP>
> So, do you want Harry to win, or do you want Harry to be
> smug in defeat know that while his world was lost, his
> life was lost, that thousands will live in misery and tyranny
> for the foreseeable future, at least he took the high road?
> 
> Personally, I vote for VICTORY.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> So there are only two choices presented? Use Crucio or otherwise 
> thousands will live in misery?
> I can count more choices than that. And I can easily imagine scenario 
> of not using the crucio and winning. I have no problems with Harry 
> using it, but I surely do not need to pretend that those are only two 
> choices in existence.

Montavilla47:
Stop the world, Alla.  We're in agreement!  

> Steve:
> Back to some earlier aspects, I never said I /excused/ Harry.
> I said I understood his actions under the circumstances.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes me too.

Montavilla47:
Me, three.  I understand why Harry did it.  What I don't
understand is why JKR did it.


> Steve:
> The only
> bleeding heart liberals that are found in war, are the ones
> literally bleeding to death. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> What is this has to do with Harry? So as long as one is not using 
> Crucio on the enemy, one is bleeding heart liberal?

Montavilla47:
This is the part that's going to make this post *not* the forbidden
"I agree" post.  Not because I don't agree with Alla, I do.  But 
there's something I do want to say about this "bleeding hearts" 
statement.

The stereotype is that there are these two types of reactions
people might have to war:  You can be "realistic" and do what
you must (i.e. everything) to win, or you can be a "bleeding
heart" and stick to namby-pamby rules that allow the enemy
to defeat you.

But, as far as I can tell (and my direct experience is *nil*), this
is bull.  The people who join and run our military (by which
I mean the good ol' U.S. of A) are extremely ethical people.
The military requires ethical behavior--and punishes those
who fall short of it.  That's not knee-jerk authortitarianism,
either.  It's thoughtful and based on over two hundred years
of military history and self-examination.

The rules of engagement are there because, in the big 
picture, they are the best and most practical methods for 
conducting conflict.  Everything I've ever heard from the
generals who comment on how the military works, emphasize
the importance of having rules of engagement, communicating
them to the officers and enlisted personnel, and following
them.  It's when the chain of command is confused, or the
rules are clearly laid out, or soldiers just plain disregard
what they've been taught that disasters occur.