If the govt. legalized murder, would you then belive it was morally acceptable?

[Cancel7]

Does this mean every warrior who fought in the war should be tried for murder, or do you too see a difference?

If a war is "unjust" it is not the warriors who should be tried.

It is usually the commanders who are. Wasn't it Curtis Lemay who said, about WWII, if we had lost the war we would have been tried as war criminals? He meant himself and the rest of the commanding ranks, right up to the President.

That is how history is written isn't it? The losers are the savages, and the murderers, and they stand trial and are often executed. Very often for the same acts the winners committed. It is all in one's perspective.

 

[Damocles]

It is usually the commanders who are. Wasn't it Curtis Lemay who said, about WWII, if we had lost the war we would have been tried as war criminals? He meant himself and the rest of the commanding ranks, right up to the President.

That is how history is written isn't it? The losers are the savages, and the murderers, and they stand trial and are often executed. Very often for the same acts the winners committed. It is all in one's perspective.

Or we impeach and try them ourselves. There is a real possibility of that happening in the current society and trend.

A leader in this nation in particular should be careful of justifications.

My posts here do not exclude the idea of "unjust" war. They simply point out the difference between war activity and murder, why I see a difference, and why you see a difference. Pointing out that you also do not want all the soldiers tried for their action simply is a reminder that society views it differently for a reason.

As for "what social contrat?" there are entire courses in college about it, I don't have time to repeat them.

 

[Onceler]

Again, there are people dropping the bombs. You called their action murder, why would they not be tried?

You're being intentionally obtuse & disingenuous. Because they are following orders. It is an extenuating circumstance; I don't apply the same moral standard to the actions committed in those circumstances as I do to the decisions that led to them. I doubt you do either. In the terms of this discussion, the leaders are accountable.

 

[Cancel7]

This is rubbish. 'We' dropped bombs in "Shock and Awe" directly attempting to take out only military targets while keeping all other casualties to a minimum.

Exaggerating the intent to include the purposeful deaths of civilians when it was clear that was not the intent doesn't help your cause, it just makes you look crazed.

No. We dropped an historic poundage of bombs on Iraq, and we called it "shock and awe" for a reason. It was an act of terrorism meant to terrorize. We knew full well many thousands of innocents would die.

I have no cause. You are the one with a cause. Your cause is to believe in that actions taken by the United states are innocent. It's sad to me. Just very sad.

 

[uscitizen]

The intent was to take "that" life. Yes, that would be murder. There was direct intent to take life that was innocent.

When we dropped bombs on military targets there was no intent to take civilian life.

So now it is civilian vs millitary lives in an undeclared war based on lies ?

When indian tribes fought was it murder because they did not have uniforms ?

 

[Damocles]

You're being intentionally obtuse & disingenuous. Because they are following orders. It is an extenuating circumstance; I don't apply the same moral standard to the actions committed in those circumstances as I do to the decisions that led to them. I doubt you do either. In the terms of this discussion, the leaders are accountable.

No, I am trying to get you to admit that you too see a difference between the actions of a soldier at war and murder. It is not disingenuous to ask a question, especially one so direct and honest as that one.

 

[Jarod]

This is rubbish. 'We' dropped bombs in "Shock and Awe" directly attempting to take out only military targets while keeping all other casualties to a minimum.

Exaggerating the intent to include the purposeful deaths of civilians when it was clear that was not the intent doesn't help your cause, it just makes you look crazed.

You are now changing your defination. So those who blew up the towers were murders because the targets were civilians?

When we dropped bombs on troops who were forced to serve in Saddams army how was that not murder? There was no intent to kill specific troops, just those troops.

In the attack on the WTC, the intent was not to kill specific business people, just those people.

I dont see your specific argument.

 

[Cancel7]

Or we impeach and try them ourselves. There is a real possibility of that happening in the current society and trend.

A leader in this nation in particular should be careful of justifications.

Really, you believe that there is a real possibility that a United States President, or cabinet member, or general, will be impeached or relieved and tried and executed for war crimes? What world do you live in? That could only happen if we were conquered. Then, our conquerer would jail bush, possibly televise his dental examination, have a show-trial, and then hang him. They would then tell their people that they have hanged the murderer, and that all of the civillians they killed (you and I), while conquering the murderer's land so that he might be brought to justice, were unavoidable, and not criminal. And most of their people, would believe that.

But that is the only time it could ever happen.

 

[Onceler]

No, I am trying to get you to admit that you too see a difference between the actions of a soldier at war and murder. It is not disingenuous to ask a question.

Why are you trying to get me to "admit" that? Will it make you feel better about the 100,000+ civilian dead?

I admit it, Damo; you got me. The soldiers aren't murderers, and I never said they were. Good burn job, dude.

My only argument is that the leaders - a.k.a. Bush & Cheney & Wolfowicz & the rest - are the moral equivalent of murderers, and I consider them one & the same.

 

[Damocles]

So now it is civilian vs millitary lives in an undeclared war based on lies ?

When indian tribes fought was it murder because they did not have uniforms ?

Which soldier should be tried for dropping the bombs? If they should not be tried, their action isn't 'murder'. Tell me why they shouldn't be tried.

This doesn't change that the leaders can be tried. There is an intent in misleading, if you believe that is what was done, that would change what their action caused. However the soldier themselves, what of their action in dropping the bomb was "murder"?

 

[Damocles]

Why are you trying to get me to "admit" that? Will it make you feel better about the 100,000+ civilian dead?

I admit it, Damo; you got me. The soldiers aren't murderers, and I never said they were. Good burn job, dude.

My only argument is that the leaders - a.k.a. Bush & Cheney & Wolfowicz & the rest - are the moral equivalent of murderers, and I consider them one & the same.

Why would I feel better about the dead? I am simply pointing out that the soldiers' actions are either murder or not. I point out that the social contract allows for their actions. You too pointed that out.

I have repeatedly stated on here that the intent makes the difference and the leaders would be the ones you would take after. However, saying "We bombed them and that is murder!" is rubbish. "We" includes those soldiers, if you think they are murderers then try them. If not, then change the rhetoric.

 

[uscitizen]

Soldiers are just hired guns and once they become soldiers they have no choice.
It is murder by proxy though for those who started and support the war.

Just like trying a gun for killing someone. Yep the gun or bullet actually killed them, but who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger ?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Does this mean every warrior who fought in the war should be tried for murder, or do you too see a difference?

If a war is "unjust" it is not the warriors who should be tried.

Yes.... time to round up all those WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War, Bosnian conflict vets and toss their asses in jail. Hell lets march on Walter Reed and round up those vets too.

 

[Damocles]

Really, you believe that there is a real possibility that a United States President, or cabinet member, or general, will be impeached or relieved and tried and executed for war crimes? What world do you live in? That could only happen if we were conquered. Then, our conquerer would jail bush, possibly televise his dental examination, have a show-trial, and then hang him. They would then tell their people that they have hanged the murderer, and that all of the civillians they killed (you and I), while conquering the murderer's land so that he might be brought to justice, were unavoidable, and not criminal. And most of their people, would believe that.

But that is the only time it could ever happen.

I believe that in the near future (as in a few decades) such a thing could happen, yes.

 

[Cancel7]

No, I am trying to get you to admit that you too see a difference between the actions of a soldier at war and murder. It is not disingenuous to ask a question, especially one so direct and honest as that one.

You are conflating war with the actions of an individual soldier. You do this in an attempt to deflect the real debate, and change it so that you are eithr with the troops, or the troops are "murderers". This is irrelevant to our discussion.

The facts are, individual soldiers do not start wars. They do not take a country to war. They do not draw up invasion or bombing plans. They do not order cities to be destroyed.

Commanders do. And it is they whom are the topic of this discussion, just as General Lemay spoke about. He was not talking about Joe Smith from Brooklyn who fought at guadalcanal. He is talking about the commanders who ordered the fire-bombings of Dresen, and the nuking of Japan.

Don't try and hide behind the troops Damo. It's such a small thing to do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We drop bombs all over the country, during shock and awe and still today. You are being sadly disingenious to pretend otherwise.

Why do you have to do that? Would it blind you to see the truth? So you tell yourself pretty lies instead? I could never do that.

Go shove a steel rod in an unborn childs head... it'll make you feel better.

 

[Damocles]

Does this mean every warrior who fought in the war should be tried for murder, or do you too see a difference?

If a war is "unjust" it is not the warriors who should be tried.

I thought I'd relink to this post so people can't pretend that I haven't mentioned this long ago, and ask what part of that means that I think all wars are justified?

 

[Cancel7]

I believe that in the near future (as in a few decades) such a thing could happen, yes.

Well, no one can say what will happen decades from now, but this adminstration is not going to be tried for war crimes. Nor the next one, whomever that might be.

I don't see it happening, ever, unless we are conquered at any rate.

 

[Damocles]

You are conflating war with the actions of an individual soldier. You do this in an attempt to deflect the real debate, and change it so that you are eithr with the troops, or the troops are "murderers". This is irrelevant to our discussion.

The facts are, individual soldiers do not start wars. They do not take a country to war. They do not draw up invasion or bombing plans. They do not order cities to be destroyed.

Commanders do. And it is they whom are the topic of this discussion, just as General Lemay spoke about. He was not talking about Joe Smith from Brooklyn who fought at guadalcanal. He is talking about the commanders who ordered the fire-bombings of Dresen, and the nuking of Japan.

Don't try and hide behind the troops Damo. It's such a small thing to do.

No, I have made myself clear in the differences that I have pointed out.

I am not conflating anything. I am pointing out the important idea that words mean something.

To say that somebody who drops bombs on somebody is a "murderer" but then later say they shouldn't be tried because somebody else ordered it is a conflict of meaning and disingenuous. To say that ordering a war on false premises is a crime, He** yes! But to say that the people there, fulfilling their part of the social contract are in fact criminals is different.

Separating the ideas is important if one is to keep the division of "support the troops and hate the war" true.

 

[Cancel7]

Why would I feel better about the dead? I am simply pointing out that the soldiers' actions are either murder or not. I point out that the social contract allows for their actions. You too pointed that out.

I have repeatedly stated on here that the intent makes the difference and the leaders would be the ones you would take after. However, saying "We bombed them and that is murder!" is rubbish. "We" includes those soldiers, if you think they are murderers then try them. If not, then change the rhetoric.

And so, the act of bombing can never be murder, because if you call it murder then the troops are murderers.

I'd say it was a clever arguement, but it really isn't. It's dishonest and outright silly.

When the United states bombed Iraq, on a lie and a pretense, it was an act of mass-murder. Most directly responsible, and therefore, legally responsible, are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and about 2 or 3 dozen other highly ranked, or formerly highly ranking officials. They can and should be tried and executed for war crimes.

Those whom are responsible but morally, not legally, include the soldiers who carried out the orders, and, in a far greater number, the true moral culprits who enabled the perpetruaters, enumerated in the first paragraph; the american taxpayer.

We all have blood on our hands. Whether or not we, you, me, the soldiers, are technically "murderers" is a high-minded philosophical debate the outcome of which changes nothing.

But I will tell you this...there is not a hero among us.