Are soldiers murderers?

[Dywyddyr]

How far would Hitler, the Nazis and the Japanese have got without any troops?

Strawman.
Or are you claiming that every single one of them was in it for the money or the killing?

china alone has two million soldiers.

And your point would be...?

 

[S.A.M.]

Strawman.
Or are you claiming that every single one of them was in it for the money or the killing?

And are you claiming the soldiers were fighting the policymakers? If all soldiers laid down their arms, who would fight the wars?

 

[Dywyddyr]

And are you claiming the soldiers were fighting the policymakers?

Nope, my point is that the blanket statement "soldiers are murderers and in it for the money or the opportunity to kill" is fatuous and wrong.
Anything else is up for grabs.

If all soldiers laid down their arms, who would fight the wars?

What a nice fluffy ideal.
I doubt it'll happen while we're still human.
(Although sniffy suggested a couple of weeks ago that it might be better to solve disputes with chess matches).

 

[S.A.M.]

Nope, my point is that the blanket statement "soldiers are murderers and in it for the money or the opportunity to kill" is fatuous and wrong.
Anything else is up for grabs.


What a nice fluffy ideal.
I doubt it'll happen while we're still human.
(Although sniffy suggested a couple of weeks ago that it might be better to solve disputes with chess matches).

Whatever their reasoning, the basis of every war is a soldier willing to fight in it. A soldier willing to aim that gun at another human being, drop that batch of cluster bombs on the village, aim that missile at that UN school and press that button that puts a mushroom cloud over a city.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Whatever their reasoning, the basis of every war is a soldier willing to fight in it.

Surely the basis of WAR (qua war is (failed) politics and national/ religious/ whatever identity?*
Otherwise it'd just be unseemly scuffles a la post-match fracas.


* Probably: will give this more thought.

Tch, rapid editing: shame on you...

A soldier willing to aim that gun at another human being, drop that batch of cluster bombs on the village, aim that missile at that UN school and press that button that puts a mushroom cloud over a city.

Not quite: that would be a person deciding that the overall picture is better-known by someone "in charge".
Maybe it comes down as much to abrogation of some responsibilities (if that's the word) as much as anything?
It's the politicians that decide the "objectives". Soldiers just get to work out how they're achieved (within their own specialisation).

Admitted Edit: and this is still skirting the point of soldier = murderer and soldier = in it for the money/ killing.

 

[S.A.M.]

You think about it. What is the soldier pressing that button thinking of?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You think about it. What is the soldier pressing that button thinking of?

Not the money or "I'm doing this because I get to kill people".
It's more "Someone has decided that this is required for X purposes (national defence/ furtherance of national policy/ whatever) and I'm going to take it on trust that they know what they're doing".

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly, he's a proxy who is only doing his job.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Exactly, he's a proxy who is only doing his job.

Yup, having decided (in the case of volunteers) that the job is worthwhile and/ or necessary (maybe even a necessary evil).
I.e. a civic duty or an obligation (in "some" cases).

And, as mentioned above not all soldiers are in the job of actual combat...
IIRC WWII figures were roughly 1:7 combat troops: support troops - all classed as "soldiers".

Edit: not to mention at all those soldiers who don't ever get into combat (even if they've signed up for it).
Swiss army anyone?
Swiss soldiers are murderers?
When was the last time they got involved in a shooting match?
And even those nations that have been involved (say modern-day US Army) what percentage of the total of US troops actually went into the fight?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yup, having decided (in the case of volunteers) that the job is worthwhile and/ or necessary (maybe even a necessary evil).
I.e. a civic duty or an obligation (in "some" cases).

Yeah like throwing a nuclear bomb on a city.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah like throwing a nuclear bomb on a city.

I believe the term I heard used was "urban redevelopment".
But the guy had had a couple of pints...
He was as scared about the "necessity" for pushing the button as anyone I've ever seen.

 

[baftan]

The OP is "Are soldiers murderers?"

"Soldier" means a person who performs war operation under an organisation, institution, a historic department in human administration mechanism. And this organisation is normally an army.

"Soldier" does not mean any individual who defends his or her country (loved ones, life style, territory, etc.) according to his or her personal style or to the free gatherings of similar minded people. So forget about this "individual differences among soldiers", or "personal opinions are shadowing the absolute truth", or "generalisations are wrong" music: This is about individual's legal, social, traditional, or political status in an organisation, and how could we define his or her job? That's it. We are not dealing with human beings; we are talking about soldiers, a role, and a uniform within a mechanism.

When I said "Soldiers are hired guns", I wanted to signify;

(a) The status of individual as a part of a bigger organisation which is simply "hired": Armies hire people, they do not go and ask them why they are in the army. Just as working in a company: Some works for pleasure, some works just for money, some works for carrier, some works for some other reason. But they are all workers: They are "hired" by company/companies.

(b) The job of soldier necessarily include killing. That's why the OP wants to know if this killing can be called as murder or not. The word "soldier" differs from guerrilla, mafia, hunter, serial killer, doctor, executioner or any other role/title that kill other people for individual or organization related reasons. I wouldn't call a soldier a murderer, since this would be an easy escape for not seeing the role of a soldier within the mechanism. However, the word "murder" reminds us the job of a soldier. All in all, OP can neither be replied with simple "yes" or "no", nor be redefined with a romantic soldier definition. It is strict.

What are the types of official agreements: Money or compulsory duty. This is the official status of the hired soldiers on the official documents. Even though armies put posters “army need volunteers”, they do not recruit people under the titles of “volunteer” or “non- volunteer”, and they do not repeat this initial reason on official papers: Because “every soldier must do their duties within the army”, they can not be divided other than official ranks: No gender, no race, no ethnicity, no background differences, only official ranks. “I volunteered for protecting my country and I killed” and “I hate army, I never wanted to be here and I killed”. These are not the status of soldiers in front of army. Otherwise, in the middle of a training or war, a soldier may reject the situation and say “I didn’t volunteer for this”. A soldier can still say that, but to his or her friend and family, or to himself or herself. But this can not be used against army, because on the paper you either made an agreement and get paid for your job, or registered as “compulsory duty”.

So, you are twisting OP, and doing this with an arrogant manner:

Better luck with your next attempt.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I agree with your post (apart from the strawmen arguments) up until:

(b) The job of soldier necessarily include killing.

No, as shown by YOUR OWN quote from the link about conscientious objectors.
A medic is STILL a soldier.
A truck driver is STILL a soldier.
A storeman is STILL a soldier.
An intelligence analyst is STILL a soldier.
Etc...

So, you are twisting OP, and doing this with an arrogant manner:

Wrong again: I was pointing out the idiocy of the blanket comment on "they're in it for the money or the killing".

And as shown in my post above MANY "front-line" soldiers don't even (ever) see combat.
Are they murderers?
Are they even killers?

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree with your post (apart from the strawmen arguments) up until:

No, as shown by YOUR OWN quote from the link about conscientious objectors.
A medic is STILL a soldier.
A truck driver is STILL a soldier.
A storeman is STILL a soldier.
An intelligence analyst is STILL a soldier.
Etc...

And all of them are supporting the main function of the soldier, to kill the enemy. The medic is there to ensure the soldier is kept alive, the truck driver to transport his food and equipment, the storeman for provisions, the intelligence analyst to aid in strategy

Note that if you eliminated all of these, it would make the job of the soldier harder, but he could still carry on. If you eliminated the soldier himself, none of them would even be required.

 

[baftan]

I was pointing out the idiocy of the blanket comment on "they're in it for the money or the killing".

I didn't say anything like that...

And as shown in my post above MANY "front-line" soldiers don't even (ever) see combat.
Are they murderers?
Are they even killers?

I also didn't scrutinize any of these.

I still say soldiers are hired guns, even if they are storemen, medics or communication officers. Because they carry guns, they have right to carry guns; if they kill out of duty, they can get "discounts" or "understanding" from legal systems or from society. Killing and dying are parts of their job, even if individual soldiers had never killed anybody, the organisation they are actively working is specifically designed for killing (or exterminating) the enemy. This is a completely different feature comparing with a civilian storemen, medics or communication officers.

 

[John99]

1/4th of the earths population are soldiers.

 

[S.A.M.]

86% of statistics are made up

 

[John99]

it's still a very high number. not even considering compulsory service.

 

[baftan]

86% of statistics are made up

Does it include this one as well?

 

[Zap]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is directly quoted from the Declaration of Independence. I agree with them because they make sense (the Creator bit notwithstanding, since that is not within the scope of this thread).

I will ask it again - read it very slowly so you will understand it this time (or have a better chance to): WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE CLAIMS IN IT ARE TRUE?

RHETORICAL PLAUSIBLITY |= PATENT VERACITY

The populace of any country. Even those which are not democratic in nature. The populace of a country that does not remove its government from power when it no longer fulfills the will of the people, is giving tacit approval to the continuance of the government. Therefore, it is the will of the masses that keep governments in power.

In what sense does a prisoner give 'tacit approval' to his jailer, if he is unable to escape? You win the Gold Medal in the Special Olympics with this one.

That is the same as the populace of a city demanding maintenence on its roads, and city government charging taxes to pay for those roads. Even on those who do not drive. Yes, it is morally permissible.

What if some of the 'governed' object? Like half? Tough luck? Why should 100% of the governed have to submit to the will of 35% of the people (a majority of those of voting age - presuming everyone votes, which is never the case).

Soldiers are held to a higher standard. They are held to standards of behavior under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as civilian law. They are held to the standards put forth by those in command over them. They are required to do things that civilians are not, simply because they are soldiers. Civilians also have many things that they are allowed to do that soldiers are not, for example, protesting, or operating their own business outside of work, or taking a sick day.

You have failed to respond to my example of the My Lai massacre, the 500 unarmed civilians who were massacred by 26 US troops, and how the only penalty the Americans received was given to the commander only, who got three years of house arrest. What penalty would you, as a civilian receive for butchering 500 people?

The people ultimately pay the price, due to the fact that if their government is performing atrocities with their approval, then other countries will come in and put a stop to it, ultimately resulting in either the economic ruin of their nation via sanctions, or the obvious problems of war. Just look at Nazi Germany. The government was performing atrocities, the people of Germany did not put a stop to it, so other countries took action.

The US commits atrocities all the time, and no one puts a stop to it. Not to African slavery, not to the genocide of the natives, not to the imperialistic interference in Cuba or central America, not to the merciless dictators the US has installed over the world quite regularly for the past fifty years, not to the massacre of Nicaraguans in the 1980s, not to the million children killed in the illegal food embargoes of Iraq during the 1990s, not to the illegal Iraqi war, and not to the maintenance of more than 700 US military installations in more than a hundred countries around the world. There were and are members of the 'governed' who vigorously protested and do protest all of these things, to no avail.

It is one thing for CNN or Fox or NPR or the Podunk Times to report that the approval rates of certain actions of the government are down, but ultimately, it does not mean anything. If the people do not actively put a stop to their government's actions, then they are approving those actions.

Again, says who? If a planet-killing comet is hurdling towards Earth, and you don't stop it, is it safe to say you 'approve' of that comet's actions? God, what a fucking idiot.

I'm now going to give you some very careful and precise instructions:
1) Find the sharpest knife you can.
2) Undress.
3) Locate your genitalia.
4) Use the knife to slice or saw off said genitalia.
5) Use authorised biohazard bag to safely dispose of genitalia.
6) Get a mirror, two pieces of paper, and a marker.
7) Write the word 'moron' on one of those pieces of paper.
8) Reflect the writing in the mirror, and copy the mirrored word it exactly as it appears onto the other sheet of paper.
9) Hold the mirror up so that you can view your own forehead.
10) Using the knife, carve into your forehead the mirrored word just as it appears on the second sheet of paper.
11) Find your voter registration card, if you have one.
12) Set it on fire, and use the flame to cauterise the wounds.