Damn, the naval forces in Haiti must really be racking up the kill count then, huh? /sarcasm

The military's job is not to go out and commit murder. Their job is to go into dangerous places and situations in the name of their country and its interests, and while this can involve killing people, its far from the only thing they do.

 

Murder is not their job.

Waging war when one is declared is their job. Deaths to enemy combatants are not murders they are expected combat casualties. Civilian deaths due to errant munitions is also not murder, they are collateral damage.

The death of anyone not engaged in hostile acts by US troops, could be murder if the individual death was caused on purpose. That's why there are inquiries and court marshals if warranted.

 

They're called the armed forces for a reason. They're armed. Their job is to kill. They're trained to kill.

Killing people is still murder no matter how you justify it.

 

Maryland I agree with your sentiment however I would say that killing is killing. Murder however is a legal term of art that has various definitions in different jurisdictions but generally it means the willful, unlawful, taking of human life. There are several categories of lawful taking of a human life that come under the category of justifiable homicide. The most obvious is self defense. In some states and countries also the defense of family members or property. In Texas you can or could unless they changed it, legally kill a man you caught in bed with your wife. A policeman may kill in the line of duty of they follow the proper procedures set forth in their jurisdiction. A solider may kill in the line of duty when following a lawful order. Sorry Tenguy. It doesn't have to be in a time of war, declared or not. An executioner can kill a condemned prisoner. Nor is collateral damage legally murder although I hate such a sterile term for the killing of innocent men, women, and children. Manslaughter also killing that isn't murder because it isn't willful. These are all killings but none is murder. There may be more but I can't think of any.

Again I'm not disagreeing with your intent but words have meanings and I believe that we need to understand what how to say what we mean especially in such a loaded conversation.

 

They're also trained in search and rescue, community organizing, emergency medical techniques, construction, logistics, farming, and just about any and every other skill necessary to keep a society running, with individuals specializing in different fields just like everyone else. Their job is to put their lives at risk to do the jobs where and when others either cannot or will not.

Declaring that the military is trained and established to be a group of murderers is an insult to any and every man and woman who has ever served or lost a loved one in the line of duty.

 

And who decides if it's lawful?

I'm just having fun, I don't actually think this stuff. It's just entertaining watching the "NUH UH" responses.

What is the military's primary purpose? You can delve into specialists all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's purpose is to wage war on others ie kill.

 

No, the warning was literal. Be aware of leaders trying to profit off of war, period.

 

I agree with you.

We shouldn't have a military?? How naive.

 

I see the military's purpose as to defend.

 

Lawfulness of an order is determined by the Universal Code of Military Justice, which is in turn determined by the civilian leadership of the country, up to and including any restrictions necessary to comply with foreign treaties.

And the purpose of war is not to kill. That shows a completely flawed understanding of war. War is fought primarily for one of three goals: power, profit, or protection. In all cases the goal is not to kill your enemy, but to destroy your enemy's ability to make war on you. While it normally does involve combat in the field, it is normally achieved in the modern sense by destroying your opponent's logistical train; i.e. their food, ability to maneuver and resupply, their means of constructing and developing new weapons, and so forth. Troops then go in and hold key positions, to prevent the opponent from re-establishing their strengths.

When the purpose of war becomes to kill and kill alone then it is no longer called war, but genocide.

 

So.. Iraq/Afganistan attacked us?
Iraq attacked us (1st war)
The Vietnamese attacked us?
The Koreans attacked us?
The Russians attacked us?
etc etc etc

 

So essentially what you're saying is it's decided by the invading country. Isn't that the equivalent of having the criminal decide if he broke a law?

Let me ask you this question while we're on this topic. What laws did the Nazis break?

 

Let's see...

Afhganistan---> Harbored and abetted the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Iraq '91---> Invaded and threatened to invaded allied friendly nations. (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). 2003 was simply the ending act of our ten plus years occupying the country.


Vietnam---> Originally became involved at the behest of a friendly allied nation (France)

Korea---> Became involved in the defense of a friendly allied nation (South Korea)

I don't recall any active hostilities with the Soviets, though there were plenty of close calls.

Sooooo tell me which ones we just walked in and started shooting at people?

 

You don't think the Russians would have? Cuban Missile Crisis.
And the South Koreans and South Vietnamese were allies.
Kuwait is also an ally.

We helped Afhganistan when the Russians were invading it.

 

Um, no, I'm saying the rules established for the military are established by each country individually, and then modified by mutual treaty agreements.

You mean besides the vast number of treaty violations in light of what was established at Versailles, and the institutionalized mass murder of their own civilians?

 

Basically you answered your own question: all of them.

Nam/Korea were just political points trying to prevent the spread of communism.

Afganistan/Iraq, as you said, did not attack us and there are actually more terrorists there now than before. Saddam (Iraq) kept the terrorists in check.

Kuwait was simply a puppet government that gave the US oil (much like Saudi Arabia) and was essentially the US way fund to fund Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war.

 

Oh, don't even go there!

 

Oh, don't even go there! Considering that Hilter wanted to conquer the whole world and do a global ethnic cleansing of Jews, gypsies, handicapped, gays, and other people, they broke the laws of humanity. We've never tried to annihilate a people just because of their nationality or religion.

 

For their military. i'm fairly sure if a country invaded another one, the country being invaded would look at it as unlawful

You mean about how they're basically not allowed to have a military and are essentially the sole violator in WWI?

It was not illegal in Germany to kill its own citizens. The Nuremberg trials are a textbook example of ex post facto law because they 'crimes' were not crimes when they were committed. Not only that, but the trial itself had a number of issues.

 

Saddam kept the terrorists in check?? Are you kidding? Saddam killed, raped, gassed, tortured his own people and the Kurds.