<p>I was reading the site fmylife.com today, and there was a post about a 6 year-old who told a veteran in a wheelchair that he deserved having his leg blown off, since killing people was wrong. That was shocking, but understanding since she's just little. I decided to read the comments.</p>
<p>It seemed like a good majority of people were rooting on the little girl, saying she's right, veterans are not heroes, killing is wrong under any circumstances, "orders are orders" is not a good excuse, etc..</p>
<p>I was shocked that so many people (ones who have never fought in a war or had their lives put in such danger) were blatantly against the troops and veterans, not just the wars. I thought that the ideology had changed since people spat on returning Vietnam vets - is this still a prevalent viewpoint??</p>
<p>I think it really depends. I mean a lot of times if you’re a soldier you’re only going to be attacking/killing people who are threatening to attack/kill you to begin with. So in those instances it can be self defense. </p>
<p>However our country has had sort of a history with troops being ordered to kill mercilessly (A lot of this went on in Vietnam). And a lot of photos/video/newsreports/etc got out to the public during the Vietnam war of these atrocities and it made American citizens sick, which is understandable. And its natural for these people to feel disgusted at these veterans (but whether or not the vets deserve their contempt is a completely different issue altogether. All I’m saying here is that it’s not difficult to see why people who harp on vets feel the way they do.) </p>
<p>But it certainly does raise an ethical dilemma. Is it ok to kill a tribe of people simply because your commanding officer tells you to? I’m sure more strict regulations about what is/isn’t allowed has come into play since Vietnam and that the criteria for something to be considered a war crime are probably more in-depth than in the past. </p>
<p>Me, personally. I would probably disobey my commanding officer in such a situation and deal with the inevitable consequences/military court trial or whatever. A part of me believes that any rational human being trying to determine any punishment I would have to endure for not obeying orders to slaughter innocent people would feel some degree of pathos towards me.</p>
<p>But then again (and I feel like this post is beginning to sound like a ramble), I’ve never been in a war and I hope to God I never will be so I don’t know for sure what exactly I would do. It’s easy for me to sit back here in the comfort of my own home and assume that I wouldn’t do such horrible things and its similarly easy for citizens to judge these vets without being able to truly understand the context of their actions. War is hell.</p>
<p>This is just me, but I feel that asking a soldier to go through months/years of conditioning to obey leaders without question and function as a team, then putting him under the stress of combat, then asking him to suddenly sort things out on his own - it seems a bit much, doesn’t it? I mean, from what I’ve read, the relationship between soldiers and commanders or what have you was always characterized as having an element of Stockholm Syndrome, someone you didn’t like but who you eventually became attached to. And again, with the continual stresses/desensitizing effects of combat…it seems quite unfair to judge soldiers from our relative comfort.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that what a soldier does is right - I’m against killing in general - but war is just not something the vast majority of us civilians are in any way acquainted with. </p>
<p>Would love it if someone with military experience would chime in on the soldier-superior relationship, btw.</p>
<p>EDIT: Reading the post above, that guy nailed a lot of what I’m saying.</p>
<p>At any rate, I’m pretty firmly against criticizing vets as individuals for the most part. Following orders just seems such an integral part of the military.</p>
<p>The problem isn’t the 6 year old girl; it is probably her parents who fed her that ignorant garbage. Our troops deserve nothing but respect-it is because of them that we enjoy all of the rights and privileges that many of us take for granted today.</p>
<p>Soldiers MUST DISobey illegal orders. If a superior orders them to slaughter a village, they are legally obligated to DISobey, or they will be charged with muder and other war crimes. This is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. </p>
<p>You can find a lot more info by researching the “Law of Armed Conflict.”</p>
<p>Does murder happen in war? Yes, it does. Is it tolerated by the US military? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>Is it tolerated by the military?
Yes it is.
Of course it is.
Soldiers make unrighteous kills in war. They make grossly unrighteous kills. The reason the US military doesn’t prosecute them as harshly as nations who haven’t seen war since the middle of last century would like them to is that the US military feels an obligation to protect its own, since they are the ones going out and putting down their lives. </p>
<p>Can’t a soldier who disobeys direct orders be summarily executed? </p>
<p>Moreover, a soldier who disobeys direct orders demonstrates that he thinks his morals are more important than the objective his commander has set before him. That is a bad mark to have.</p>
<p>IBfootballer, you really don’t know a whole lot about what you are talking about. The military takes those kinds of things VERY seriously, and has already tried several American soldiers for crimes that they committed while stationed overseas. There are a few wackos in every organization, but the military as a whole is determined to maintain the moral upper hand.</p>
<p>IBfootballer, do you have any specifics, because I can think of a few organizations that would want to know…in the DoD.</p>
<p>What do you define as “grossly unrighteous kills?” That probably factors into our difference of opinion quite heavily. Sanctioned killing (i.e. killing that falls withing the L.O.A.C.) and murder are separate, but can be blurred under a few circumstances (especially when talking about proportionality and innocent victims of area of effect weapons).</p>
<p>Soldiers who disobey direct LEGAL orders can face the death penalty, if in time of war, and only after being convicted via a Court Martial. I do not know when that last occured, but it has been quite a while.</p>
<p>According to my system of absolute morals, killing is ALWAYS wrong. Self-defense, pre-emption, orders, death penalty, abortion – the deprivation of human life is NEVER right. I wouldn’t say the soldier deserved to have his leg blown off, though.</p>
<p>What a way to respond to an argument.</p>
<p>I don’t think killing is a good thing, but sometimes it is the best choice available. It’s not nice, but is sometimes justified. That is my basic belief on the topic.</p>
<p>If a group is waging war on another, I believe it is justifed to attempt to stop them, including the use of lethal force.</p>
<p>So, by a logical extension of your argument, if Group A is torturing Group B, it’s justified for Group B to torture Group A, right?</p>
<p>Wait, no? Wait, most people who favor killing terrorists don’t want to torture them? How does that make any sense?</p>
<p>If you’re going to argue for “sometimes justifiable force,” then that “force” MUST include torture. Which is why I’m not only against violence, but torture. It makes us no better than the terrorists.</p>
<p>No.
Justifiable force
Torturing people does not reduce the likelihood that they will attack you (since you already have control over them, it is not necessary to stop them).</p>
<p>There are also LOAC considerations you are not taking into your view. Prisoners of War must be treated with care and dignity, per the accepted international laws.</p>