Terramax said:
Murder is the crime of killing. Killing the innocent, the unthreatening, those not involved in a conflict.
Last time I checked it's been America that's gone around murdering innocents in the streets and farm fields of foreign countries more than anyone else in the last 50 years. That's what arming your country's soldiers have done. Do you mean to tell me that was all 'defensive action?'. As max said "it would end a few pointless wars." if they hadn't been. Although more accurately, it wouldn't have started a few in the first place.
I'm not going to act like Vietnam or Iraq were justified invasions, you're misunderstanding my viewpoints. I'm not saying that every war is a good, just war, or that every military action is a good one. When did this become about the American military? I made the example to Max because he's an American. But this isn't about me proving a pro-American agenda through and through, it's about the soldier on the battlefield, who's only decesion was to serve their respective country. And while there are several cases of soldiers abusing their power, yes, there are far more cases of atrocities from the other side that those soldiers are trying to stop. Like, let's say the UN Food Charity that was bombed by Taliban two days ago. When America invaded Afghanistan, it was to hunt down Taliban/Al Qaeda, and that was justified in my eyes. The invasion of Iraq, I did not agree with, however we did take Saddam Hussein, a man guilty of war crimes even in the eyes of his own people, so atleast a small amount of good has come from that war (though other than that it has been a very, very big mistake on our nation's part imo). There are just as many cases of soldiers doing good things as there are soldiers doing bad things. But last time I checked, the enemy we're fighting is doing FAR worse things, like, you know, bombing populated city centers.
That's where war-crimes come in, like the Holocaust. War is when warriors and soldiers from opposing sides meet on the battlefield.
So in your opinion would you say then that the American military (along with any other countries involved) should be arrested for warcrimes for their acts in Vietnam and the Iraqi wars?
In the act of killing innocents, yes, I believe they should be prosecuted for their actions, if they were purposeful, and they have been prosecuted before. How do I know this? Because that's my job.
Not to say all wars are like that. There are those that have defended i.e. the allies during WWII. But it's not as common for one side to be pure and the other to be evil. Take the 2nd Iraqi war. That ***** English soldier who tied up prisoners to chains and took degrading photos of them. Why, she's no better than any terrorist she was supposedly fighting against.
While I am in no way defending the actions taken in mistreating prisoners, she is slightly better than the terrorists she's fighting, becasue, you know, those guys actually torture you. Like, cut your hands off and decapitate you on camera.
And if soldiers in circumstances such as Iraq are willing to do so much, then how come they're all only too willing to take a plane ticket back home the first chance they get? It's because they're will to join the military when they're paid to do nothing more than sit on their arses all day, but as soon as they have to do their actual job, but want out when they're expected to use their guns.
Um, you have next to no knowledge of what soldiers do during times of peace do you? There's constant training, constant maintenance, constant deployment and peace-keeping operations. They want their plane tickets back home because they've been deployed for a year and half, two years straight, not seeing the faces of their wives or children ever.
MaxTheReaper said:
I don't like soldiers as a general rule. People who follow orders strike me as feeble-minded, and I see no real need to think of them as people.
I fully agree with this. So many have this nonsensical rule that just because soldiers kill under the command of their higher-ranking officer, or politician, they are exempt of responsibility for any murders/ killings they?ve commit.
The people I take orders from directly earned the right to give me orders. They've been through the same things I've been through. My officers are all former enlisted, and are veterans of combat, as are my NCOs. If there is anyone qualified to tell me what to do, it is them.
While you two are busy jerking off one another about how 'feeble-minded and subservient' soldiers are, there are people who are actually attempting to accomplish something in the world. While its not always a noble goal their leaders are pursuing, I can ask you this. When's the last time you dethroned a dictator or ended a genocide? Has that ever been accomplished through peace? No, unfortunately we live in a world where those evils exist, and the military (in America, England, Canada, etc) is there to stop that evil. While those people risk their lives to save others (again, I admit it is not always so noble), you two just sit back in your cozy little chairs and wax on, agreeing with each other about how "conformity is for the weak minded".
In actuality, anyone who signs up to a military is signing a declaration stating they're prepared to kill whoever, for whatever purpose, noble or not, for their country or organisation. That makes them murders by default.
No, you have no understanding of the oath soldiers take. There's a law in the military, the UCMJ, and that law states that if we are given an order that is unethical and illegal by the Geneva convention, then we are required to disobey that order. If we do not disobey, then we are held just as responsible as the officer who gave us this order.
Quit acting like you know how the military is ran, or who soldiers are. You two don't know jack shit about it.
