+62

A poll was recently conducted about war, where 80% of the people polled said they did NOT think killing during war was murder. Really?! I'm sorry, but I just don't think killing innocent 18 year-olds "in the name of war" makes it any better.

72%Agree28%Disagree
snow_whites avatar Politics
Share
2 9

The people who thought it wasn't murder were probably only thinking about the troops being killed, not the innocent victims.

I think I may have misunderstood this post. I do not think it is at all like murder to kill soldiers at war, however, killing people that are uninvolved is definitely so.

Onees avatar Onee Disagree +9Reply
@Onee I think I may have misunderstood this post. I do not think it is at all like murder to kill soldiers at war...

I don't think you misunderstood, I think OP misunderstood what the people answering the poll meant. Or, rather, the people answering the poll didn't completely think about it. I highly doubt they were thinking about innocent people getting killed; they were only considering the people that would have been firing back.

Statefarms avatar Statefarm Disagree +3Reply

Define murder. I think of murder as only the unjust killing of an innocent person. Troops serve as entities not of themselves but of the country tey represent. In a war, neither side is innocent and the killings are not unjust as they counteract their own casualties.

Not to mention, if some random person was shooting at me here at home and I shot him, no court of law would consider that murder

Id like to see that poll and the questions asked which circumstance and who were polled

Okay, you've opened a huge can of worms here, but I'll deal briefly with some of the issues I see as important:

1. Modern War and Civilians - At the beginning of WW2 Rooseveldt went on the record telling everyone that bombing civilians was wrong. By the end of WW2 the U.S. was dropping nukes on civilian cities, and this trend in warfare has continued to today. In the recent "War on Terror" the civilian death toll is, by some counts, upwards of a million people... and war has never actually officially been declared to things like the Geneva convention don't apply. The number of civilian dead exceeds the number of military dead.

2. Modern Warfare and Troops - I don't think it's right to send some 18 year old kid into a firefight to fight for something some fat politician sitting somewhere safely decides is important. Unless your country is actually attacked by another country (not a few loony terrorists, and actual COUNTRY), then use of troops is unacceptable. One should also consider that modern warfare barely uses troops anymore, now it's all drones. The ethical problem here? All that stopped Vietnam (an undeniably unjust war) was U.S. casualties. What will stop the current war?

@Shalestra Okay, you've opened a huge can of worms here, but I'll deal briefly with some of the issues I see as important: 1...

ONE tiny thing: I'm not sure if you're saying that the US was hypocritical in the beginning of Part 1, but if you were, I just wanted to point out that Roosevelt was dead by the time the nukes were dropped. That was all Truman's decision.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm just a little confused--do you agree with OP or not...?

Anonymous +1Reply

"All is fair in love and war"

They don't stop at 18-year-olds either!

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.