Of course they're justified. Why wouldn't they be? We are their enemies ad they're doing what they can to kill us. You trying to find some moral high ground in that, good luck. I have been too harsh with you. You don't understand, how could you? Wars are won by those that are willing to get down in the blood and guts of it all, and stay there. Those that can stomach it the longest will win, which is exactly why we'll lose. We have no stomach for it, and they do. We'll leave with some peace with honor bullshit slogan, just like the Nam, but it'll be another loser. Brave men and women will have died for nothing. All we're doing now is paying the enemy to stop fighting. It's nothing more than extortion on their part, and I give them their prop's for pulling it off. Much easier and profitable to extort money than build an actual infrastructure, a nation, a working government. The same will happen in Afganistan. The lesson we never seem to learn is, don't go to war unless you've got a damn good reason. When you have a damn good reason you'll stay in the blood and guts for as long as it takes. Bottom line, in their mind the reason for fighting is better than ours. Hard pill to swallow, but it's true.
I like best William F. Buckley Jr.'s response to such moral equivalency: "Buckley was particularly concerned about the view that what the CIA and the KGB were doing was morally equivalent. As he wrote in his memoirs, "I said to Johnny Carson that to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."
Sounds nice, completley meaningless, but a nice thought. As I stated previously, in regard to war, there is no morality. And as stated before, our enemies do not burden themselves with such intellectual drivel. It's about demonstrating to the enemy that we are able, and more importantly willing, to kill every god damn one of them if that's what it takes. When that happens the seeming mindless fanatic suddenly becomes reasonable and ready for peace. Reference WWII for an example. A nations morality, compassion, humanity and the like are demonstrated by what they do AFTER the killing ends.
To the OP: the difference is one between having a military policy of deliberately targeting civilians (as most terrorist organisations do), and having one of avoiding/minimizing civilian casualties (as most armies in the west do) even if it gets violated from time to time by a number of rogue soldiers. Your criticism of US soldiers would be valid if it were US army policy to do this as a matter of course, or if the majority of US soldiers were doing this. But not if it is limited to a minority of soldiers who are breaking the rules of engagement. So far, we haven't seen any evidence that the US army has a policy of deliberately targeting civilians who aren't a threat, not have we seen evidence that most US soldiers do so. All we've seen is a small number of such cases - something that happens in every war and occupation, no matter which countries are involved or which period in history it happened. As for the apparent psycho in the clip - military training deliberately desensitizes people to killing. If it didn't, you would have a situation like WWII where 90% of people never actually deliberately aimed to kill enemy soldiers, due to their natural instincts against taking life. If you want an effective combat force, you have to get rid of the natural instinct to not kill someone. Of course, the downside of this is that in borderline situations (and occasionally non-borderline ones), there is a higher risk of killing someone who shouldn't be killed, either through psychopathic intent, or an error of judgement. That's the nature of conflict - there is no way to make an army better at killing people without increasing the number of people that it kills. That would be like making a more powerful bomb that had less destructive power, it's a contradiction in terms.
Where's your evidence for that claim? The fact that there are rules of war, voluntarily signed up for (e.g. Geneva conventions; military discipline; rules of engagement), shows that there is some morality in war. There is a big difference between the morality becoming a lot more brutal, self-interested, and survivalist, and morality being non-existent. Sometimes in a lifeboat situation, people will fight over spaces, fat people will get pushed out to drown etc. That is not the same as a true every man for himself situation with no morality at all.
Evidence? Where was the morality in the fire bombing of Dresden? Not really required to win the war other than to show the Germans we'd kill them all if need be. Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked. Why? They weren't really military targets. Other less populated targets could have been bombed just to show the Japanese we had a really big bomb. Instead we chose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It did make the point...we'll kill every god damn one of you if that what it takes. The Japanese, no less fanatic that the terroists we face today, suddenly were ready for peace. Imagine that! I hold my position, morality has no place in war. Before and after, certainly. During, it's an exercise in futility.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html Look at the military records of the champions of war, noticeably most are chicken hawks. And of the few sane voices on war in the Republican party most are veterans.
you have just justified 911 or pearl harbor. if an enemy somehow is able to nuke an entire city it is justifiable based on your rationalization. after all they are just demonstrating their resolve.
And this has what to do with the discussion here? We're having a discussion about what actually happens in war and how one should be fought if one intends to win. There are differences of opinion, but there isn't anyone here championing war. Take your political bias elsewhere.
Yes! Although "Justifiable" is a relative term, as is resolve. One man's justification is another mans unprovoked attacked. One man's resolve is another man's fanaticism. All depends on whose side your on.