To extend your beliefs, Karen Ann Quinlan should still be alive. The men who fought to liberate the United States in the Revolution and those who died at Normandy in 1944 are all murderers. If you truly believe that I have to agree to disagree. My final comment on this would be if your Nation was threatened, should we collectively agree that it would be wrong to defend our way of life? Rhetoric like soldier=murderer means those that may defend you may rethink the murder idea of the job. I train killers, not murderers.
He is teaching people how to kill. This is what solders do. This skill can be used in the defence of their country, but it is not in this war, and for which we owe no debt of gratitude. We are worse off for having fought this war, and while I feel sorry for those who put their lives on the line, the harder they fight, the worse off we are.
Again, I ask the question which everyone side-stepped:
Question: if a war itself is illegal and morally wrong, then who are the murders?
We are traveling thousands of miles from home. We are killing people who did not attack us, who had no WMD and harbored and trained no terrorists. They were no threat to us. This war is ugly and many civilians are being killed. If you can accept orders and do that job good for you. We will bring back some real headcases when this is over. I wish soldiers could really question orders. The system is set so those that do go through hell. Some soldiers who question this war in their minds are nevertheless sent in a spot that will end up having them kill. There will be a price to pay.
I really hope that is a joke and I have been wooshed. I really don’t see the need to answer that in this forum.
Hide the bodies, Hide the bodies
Sgt Schwartz
Actually, it more reminds me of a story I read years ago, in which a well-meaning but naive woman was working with inner city girls. She taught them how to be fashion models, how to walk and dress well. At their “graduation” fashion show, she noticed a lot of men there and asked if they were the girls’ brothers. No, she was told, they were the neighborhood pimps. For the first time, she realized she had helped young women become more valuable whores. Was she helping society? One could argue that the women can get more money for their efforts, and the pimps could charge more money. The customers would be happier and will pay more.
Our fine sergeant is teaching men how to kill men, although it can spill over into how to kill women and children as well. If he is a good teacher, they will kill more effectively. Is this a good thing or is he creating more valuable whores? I guess it may depend if you have a knee-jerk reaction that all US military personnel are heroes or if you are one whose families are shot at check points, brothers are rounded up in random sweeps of town or children are bombed as they sleep.
Let me rephrase my question. If a war is illegal and immoral, are the solders heroes or murders? If they are not murders, then who are?
Warriors. They are trained to kill and destroy whatever they are told to kill and destroy. Their purpose is to defend your rights and property. If those who command them use them for a different purpose, then those commanders are ethically criminal. I have heard the argument that because soldiers are volunteers, they have no excuse. But it is a weak argument. When they stagger off the bus and line up on the yellow footprints, they are volunteers. But by the time they are pinned with Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, they are machines.
I’m not sure I understand what you are sayig but my point is that physical force is the basic building block of power. As long as there is anyone willing to use physical force we all have to be willing to use it (or at least fall under te protection of someone who is willing to use it. One of the cornerstones of civilization is that we divide the use of force into two categories, the kind that we tolerate and the kind that we don’t. The most important aspect of martial training is learning to distinguish between the two.
Ok, I read your cites, and I really don’t want to get in a big Iraq debate here, the original OP had to do with murderers vs. killers. My point was that illegality can be debated, and is. Per your cite-
“Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.”
"Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan’s remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was “entirely valid”.
An additional question is this—if the Iraq war was going well, that they had made great strides since the invasion, would the war still be considered illegal? Would anyone be questioning the legality? In other words, is a war only illegal if the outcome is not ideal?
And that’s not even dealing with the issue of morality, an entirely different can of worms.
To try to determine if a soldier is a murderer while following orders is difficult at best, even if your premise is that he is following illegal orders. To say that the Sgt is the devil incarnate for training soldiers how to use force judiciously is wrong and naive.
How far off is my premise, that not all wars are good and that people fighting them are not gods? Is is really that hard to comprehend this, or is it just easier to say that America is so special that our military is only used in the defense of the homeland and that all our troops are heroes?
Are all wars illegal? Jury is out on that one (snicker). Legality is based on treaty obligations, UN agreements (which is also a treaty), and the winner. This is going with the discussion of armed nation vs. armed nation, and does not even touch on the guerrilla / revolution type movement.
Are all wars moral? Again, the final decision will be made by the creator of your choice (or not your choice if you were wrong). Morality will be determined, again, predominantly by the winner.
A German soldier going off of to take the Sudentland could argue for morality and potentially legality. The land was taken, the people there want to come back, etc.
The primary criminals are the polital leaders if the war is both illegal and immoral. After that, it truly depends on the situation to see how far down the chain of command we should prosecute and adjudicate.
How many soldiers of Germany were prosecuted for war crimes after WWII, exclusive of concentration camp type crimes?
How many Japanese soldiers, and how far down the chain, were prosecuted after WWII?
Were Italian soldiers defending Italy guilty of anything? How about American soldiers invading?
Sometimes neither side is illegal or immoral, they are just on the losing side.
Parsing the semantics down to the 18 year old Private serves no real purpose in my opinion. However, I am happy to call him (or her) a hero when the appropriate pin/medla/salad bar is placed on their chest.
And how far off is mine? That all wars are not bad, (they’re hell,) but that the people fighting them are not murderers? Is it really so hard to comprehend this, or is it just easier to say that America is evil, that our military is only used for imperialistic, neocon takeovers, peopled by moronic bloodthirsty murderers?
A good friend of mine once remarked 'We’re just soldiers; take us out of a box when needed and keep us out of the way the rest of the time."