I see the poll has been simplified by a mod/admin with the fourth option ("yes"). I assume he believes a soldier who kills innocent civilians cannot be a good soldier and a good man, right?
Easy way out.
Afterburner;3553186Soldiers are not required to follow an order if that order is considered against the rules of war. But as for the question of killing civllians, what is a civillian? During WWII there were tons of civillian casualties but those "civillians" were also serving in factories helping your enemy. Are they still civillians then? Personally I think a civllian is only those who offer no physical support to the enemy at all, and therefor those who give aid to the enemy or support them in factories and such are no longer civllians.[/quote]
Everyone who has a job is in some way supporting their country, if they want to are not, because they are part of a functioning system. With that definition i'd say it's hard to draw the line over what exactly is support and what isn't.
[quote=Young_Pioneer;3553189]I see the poll has been simplified by a mod/admin with the fourth option ("yes"). I assume he believes a soldier who kills innocent civilians cannot be a good soldier and a good man, right?
Easy way out.
As several people have mentioned it very much depends on the situation. A lot of soldiers will never be in a situation in which they would likely kill innocents.
Karst;3553162Correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the amount of civilian casualties compared to military casualties has gone up continuously, WW2 was the first conflict with more of the former, and since then the ratio has gotten worse.
I'm pretty sure you're right with that, but here's the thing. As with most thing statistical the numbers can be misleading.
Civilians deaths have been lowered to a point, we no longer carpet bomb entire cities into the ground but rely more on precision based weapons.
However military casualties (especially in more recent conflicts relying on airpower to do most of the work) have been lowered by a much greater amount.
Really that ratio doesn't tell you anything about the chances a civilian has in combat.
a good soldier would refuse the order to attack inocent civilains, also making him a good man, in a situation were you are ordered to do something wrong to realy no benifit of the war you are allowed to deny it and report who ever ordered it to a higher athority ...i think thats how it works
The question doesnt lie in whether or not a soldier is being asked to intentionally kill civilians but if he does in the course of doing his duty. If a squad comes under fire from enemy holed up in a apartment and your troops begin taking casualties, i would EXPECT the order to return fire, then aggressively seize the building to be acted upon. If during that fight, some little old lady catches a bullet or such, thats just too damn bad. War doesnt much care for the common man. A good soldier can be a good man when he knows how to distance himself from his actions and his emotions. To act ruthlessly when needed and with mercy when called for. A man who wont shoot his enemy for fear of collateral gets himself and his teammates killed. A man who seeks to murder those most defenseless is also a useless waste. Not everyone can be a good soldier but then again not everyone can be a good man either.
I didn't make it!
Depends on the conflict they are put in, really. When your fighting to defend your homeland when your being attacked is different than when your fighting for a cause that you don't fully understand. Like WW2 vs Vietnam. Same like Iraq, an immoral war based on lies.
HairySheep;3553230a good soldier would refuse the order to attack inocent civilains, also making him a good man, in a situation were you are ordered to do something wrong to realy no benifit of the war you are allowed to deny it and report who ever ordered it to a higher athority ...i think thats how it works
So would you have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasika or not? Were the pilots good or evil soldiers?
A good solider does not make a good man in any respect of the word. They call them hero's and protectors of freedom. They destroy at an order. They kill on an order.
They train as amoral agents of the governement. There purpose is not to challenge or to think or deliberate on the issues.
Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
This is a soliders standard. There is noting moral about his obligation.
If a soldier is ordered to carry out a order that goes against his morals or he feels violates the Geneva Convention that soldier is legally in his right to refuse to carry out that order.
Sure it may mean the end of his career and he will sure as hell catch flak for it.
As for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki I have read that many bomber pilots on both sides tried to block out the thought that innocents on the ground were being killed. One pilot said "You didnt think about it, you had to block it out. If you didnt you would go mad. And some fellows did lose it".
If the pilots went out under orders and knew they were deliberately targeting civilians then yes that was bad.
I dont agree with the bombing of Dresden. For Brit pilots many saw it as revenge for British cities bombed by the Luftwaffe earlier in the war. US pilots were appalled and not comfortable with the thought of bombing civilian targets. It is documented that when the 8th AF bombed Dresden most pilots and bombadiers aimed for the railyard and rail station.
A totally different mindset applies to the firebombings of Japan. That was pretty much a race war and while some pilots were not comfortable with the act, there were plenty who saw it as Japans just rewards for bombing Pearl Harbor and starting the US into the war.
A large part of a soldiers training is to overcome his reluctance to kill. The Military wants to turn you into a cold blooded, merciless, killing machine, but one that follows orders to the letter. The SS are admired by many for their combat prowess and ruthlessness and loyalty. Perfect soldiers. But they also were connected with a large number of atrocities and the Nazis so they will forever go down in history as evil sadistic murderers.
I do so love to hear a man whose comforts are provided by better mens suffering and toil dismiss their service and trade so completely. A soldier is a tool of policy and a weapon of government. It is nothing more than a physical extension of the very laws and concepts YOU vote into power and support through your continued allegiance and funding through tax.
Your pithy existence and continued life devoid of any greater meaning than your own comfort is only earned through the blood and sweat of men willing to do the more unpleasant aspects of social welfare. Or do you live in a different world than I? One where your nations right to exist isnt from greater care and goodwill of its neighbors but through subtle force of arms or the will to enact such?