A simple question. Would you knowingly kill civilians for your country?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. Albert Einstein

“Patriots always talk of dying for their country but never of killing for their country.” Bertrand Russell

NOTE: I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps. I was in the air wing, but "Every marine is a rifleman" was pounded into our heads. Towards the end of my enlistment I go through the usual semi-annual rifle qualification course. It was a pain in the ass but just part of the job. At one point when the silhouette targets were about to pop up, the thought crossed my mind that we were at war (sort of) with Vietnam and my job included the possibility of killing people I didn't know, had nothing against, and probably would have liked if I met them. It was 1965, the escalations had just begun, and I was asked to re-enlist. Nope. I was asked to extend my enlistment for (as I recall) 13 months. Nope, again. Being still young and vocal and foolish I told the Gunny Sergeant what I thought about the war and LBJ.
It landed me 30 days of mess duty. No big deal.

I've often pondered what I would have done if I had been ordered to kill people if I had been sent to Vietnam. I would like to think that I would have refused. But, given the thought of imprisonment, I don't know.

You?

23 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (22%)
	No
	12 (52%)
	Only if I was ordered to
	0 (0%)
	Only if I knew I would be courts-martialed if I didn't
	0 (0%)
	I wouldn't and go to prison if necessary
	4 (17%)
	I don't know
	2 (9%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[gopiscrap]

1. I don't think I would kill anyone for my country

[conservaphobe]

2. For me, it would depend on the circumstances.

In another Vietnam or Iraq?

Hell no.

Against an enemy like Nazi Germany or against foreign invaders on our soil?

Hell yes.

[treestar]

23. This is a good approach

It depends. On the circumstances. What if they were about to kill me would be the main question. The Nazis had "civilians" but they were fanatical and believed in it all.

[hfojvt]

27. pretty sure all the German civilians

did NOT believe in it all, and neither, probably, did all the German soldiers.

I visited Deutschland in 2001. Went to some of the villages that my mother's maternal grandmother's ancestors came from. In Seitingen, there was a statue to commemorate the war dead, from WWI and from WWII.

From the names on it, it appeared that every person was a distant relative of mine.

In both of those wars though, the Germans had foreigners invading their country. And bombs falling on them and blockades that killed many civilians.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. As far as I know, this life is all you get.

Taking someone's away seems like the ultimate obscenity.

[MissDeeds]

32. +1

Well said.

[TheKentuckian]

4. If you would serve then you will kill civilians, that is the way it works all else is delusion.

All wars are sold as just and necessary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Thankfully, I was never faced with that choice.

As I said above, I came to the realization that I wasn't going to be called on to kill Commies, or "bad guys", or (as they tried to tell us) "targets", but people. Before that, I was pretty detached from what being a marine really entailed. That we were hired to kill. The "enemy" was whoever the bosses said it was. Faceless, not human, targets.

[Zorra]

6. "Would you let the system make you kill your brother, man?"

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. Yes

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. William Tecumseh Sherman

The idea that war is fought between armies and navies is naive. War is fought between nation states, or between nations and non-state actors. For war to be fought, weapons, clothing, and food must be purchased, grown, and/or or manufactured for the combatants. Accordingly, any participant in the economy of a warring party is part of the war, and therefore a target. This is why the Allies firebombed Dresden and Cologne, and why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed.

This is why WWIII between or among nuclear-armed powers must be avoided at all costs. Everyone will be a target.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The question is would YOU knowingly kill civilians for your country?

You. Not some nebulous nation state. Would you actually pull the trigger, drop the bomb, push the button, knowing doing so would kill people?

[TheKentuckian]

16. What is the practical difference?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

56. Unlike you, I never served in the military - so the answer is really "?"

The closest I've come to having to kill someone was being a juror on a death penalty murder case. As it turned out, I was an alternate; I didn't get to deliberate.

In theory, yes I would. Certainly if I were an elected or appointed civilian who oversaw any aspect of the execution of a war, I would order the deaths of civilians. I wouldn't like it. It would haunt me. However, ultimately, the fastest way to end a war is to maximize pain to the enemy while simultaneously taking away their ability to wage war. Sherman demonstrated this in the Civil War when he burned Atlanta to the ground and scorched the earth between Atlanta and Savannah. Germany bombed Rotterdam and subsequently threatened to level Ultrecht if the Netherlands didn't surrender. They later would bomb indiscriminately in England. The Allies firebombed cities in Germany, and bombed Japan. So if our nation was at war, I'd order whatever action was necessary to inflict as much pain and suffering on our enemy/enemies as possible.

(I posted this earlier in the wrong place in the thread. I'd add this to what I said earlier. There's no shame whatsoever in declining to re-enlist. You volunteered for the USMC, performed honorable service, and left. I'm grateful for your service to our nation).

[Algernon Moncrieff]

51. Oops - wrong place to respond.

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. As you know by now, you were wise to get out when you could.

It seems beyond reason to even consider being part of the military, to my way of thinking.

[CBGLuthier]

10. Wow, Two guys (so far) who said yes

You uhhh, kind of suck.

[wyldwolf]

12. which is exactly why I selected 'I don't know.'

[TheKentuckian]

15. If you would serve then you know good and well you are going to kill civilians

and probably in greater numbers than actual military especially from a ship, plane, or drone.

Shit, most of those most vigorously wringing their hands about this swallow "enemy combatants" without a nary a whimper even though the purpose of said designation is to allow plausible civilians to be categorized as "good kills" which also allows many others to be "collateral damage" so they don't have to mess with "intentional" aspect so directly.

[rogerashton]

13. It depends

on what the civilian is pointing at me, or at my friends.

[riderinthestorm]

14. Hasn't anyone whose joined the military decided that "yes" they would

Because its part of being a soldier. Innocents will be killed. From what I've read boot camp is designed to re-shape the way you think about killing so you will kill your "target"... You don't get to decide which orders you like and which orders you don't like. If they say "we're taking Dresden after a massive bombing campaign", that means that innocents are going to die (and did die).

So if you're in, or have been in, then you've answered that question as "yes" by the very nature of joining the military.

There's a lot of former and current military on DU, just sayin'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Yep. But that doesn't answer the question.

It is an admittedly hypothetical question that I finally asked myself while in the military. Would I really knowingly kill a civilian for something as nebulous as "my country"? I would hope that my answer, at this point would be "no". But, I can only be fairly sure of it being "no". The decision I made that day (when faced with the possibility of going to Vietnam) was "I'm sure as hell going to try and avoid killing civilians."

[riderinthestorm]

19. I guess I disagree. If you've decided to join the military, you've decided you can kill people

for your country - since civilian casualties are an absolute certainty, then you've decided you can.

I say this respectfully. I truly understand your position...

[aikoaiko]

18. Collateral damage of a legitimate target before that target kills your friends or family

I think that's how its usually frames.

[HereSince1628]

20. By choice? No, but I did contribute to operation Linebacker II

Pictures in the media suggested that operation produced a lot of collateral damage in Hanoi.

At the time, we believed that our intelligence role helped identify targets and minimize collateral damage. What else would we believe? We didn't see ourselves as wanton killers.

There are two rules in war:

1) War kills people

2) see rule number 1

[sarisataka]

21. Rather than asking about civilians

A better term would be combatants

Civilians often choose to become involved in a war either actively armed or in direct support roles to the military. By those actions they loose protection afforded to civilians and may be engaged.

Conversely some military may be non-combatants (medics or clergy typically) or they may relinquish combatant status by surrender. Killing non-combatants may only be excused if it is an unavoidable side effect of engaging active combatants. Even then, efforts should be made to minimize non-combatant casualties.

As a rule, minimizing deaths is always preferable. My units took far more POWs than inflicting casualties. As a result our opponents were more willing to surrender than fight. We also had nearly zero issues with our captives as a result of humane treatment in battle and after.

[Recursion]

30. Can't stress that last bit enough

As a result our opponents were more willing to surrender than fight.

Bingo. The Entente won WWI only after they persuaded a sufficient number of German soldiers that surrender was an acceptable option.

[ZombieHorde]

22. I wouldn't now,

but if I went through a "reeducation camp," such as boot camp, my mind may be altered to think that was acceptable behavior. I may also do it out of fear if I was in a combat situation.

[Reter]

24. What if it's 1939 and Hitler is visiting a school?

I say end the war before it starts. 300 kids dead is better that another 30 million or so.

[sarisataka]

29. Say it is August 31, 1939

You would destroy a school and everyone in it to save 60 million people.

What crystal ball tells you the man with the funny mustache will start such an unprecedented conflict in less than 48 hours?

[KittyWampus]

25. Voted "I Don't Know" causes while my first reaction was a definite "no", circumstances in real life

often have a way of getting messy.

Sometimes to save a body you have to amputate a limb.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. It is an evil act. It would take a hell of a greater evil as the alternative to consider it

For example. If it became known with certainty that a terror cell was on the verge of detonating a nuclear device in the middle of New York City and there was just barely time to take them out with a hail of automatic weapon bullets before they set it off, I would pull that trigger even if I knew there were civilians around them who would also be killed by my fire.

Civilians always die in warfare. Some combatants try to minimize civilian deaths, some try to maximize them. I refused any part of our military because, for one thing, I don't trust our leaders enough (or even public opinion) to keep us out of all but the most unavoidable and absolutely essential to fight wars - of which I think there are very very very few.

[Recursion]

28. "Civilians" covers a lot of ground. Civilian contractors working on a weapons system?

Armed irregular partisans? (Are they "civilians" or not?) Intelligence agents? Pirates are civilians, and in the military I've participated in operations against them (though never in combat against them). And, yes, I recognize it gets awful hazy awful quick: if contractors working a weapons system on a ship are OK, how about the ones building them in a factory? That line leads us to Dresden...

[KinMd]

31. In combat you're not killing for your country

,,.you're killing to stay alive and keep your fellow soldiers alive

[MrMickeysMom]

34. That's most logical

I'm sure this follows one of the main rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I've never been military trained or in the service, though I had considered it one time.

I think I may have gone with that attitude. Hindsight is so 20/20, isn't it?

[Gravitycollapse]

46. That is becoming less and less true.

We aren't riding horses into battle anymore. We have drones and high flying aircraft and long range missiles and automatic defense systems.

[DeadLetterOffice]

33. 'for something as nebulous as "my country"' -- no

But I answered 'I don't know' because I have never found myself in war and do not know what my actions and reactions would be in such situations. I also agree strongly with the poster who pointed out that when you are in combat you are not killing 'for your country' -- you are killing to protect your fellow soldiers and yourself.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. No, I couldn't even be in a fighting organization of any kind.

My Quaker roots run too deep.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. My wife just returned from Quaker services. After 70+ years as a Catholic.

She loves it. Finally, a church that embraces what she actually believes in.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. I don't go to church anymore,

but my ancestors came over with Wm. Penn, were staunch abolitionists later and generally very peaceful people. It's in my blood.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Neither do I.

My grandfather was a British soldier (though Irish) and killed people in Pakistan for the Raj.

Two uncles fought in the Canadian army and presumably killed people in France, Holland, and Germany.

My brother was in Korea during that not-quite war and didn't kill anybody, but chased naughty ladies and drank a lot.

We were Easter Catholics and we missed a lot of Easters.

I'm an Agnostic with a hint of Buddhism lurking around.

I think I started becoming a pacifist in the Marine Corps.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Thank you all for participating.

I was hoping to start a discussion and, thanks to you, it has become one.

[BillZBubb]

39. I took a pass...

I wouldn't knowingly kill civilians for anyone, including my country. If I was in a war zone, in the heat of battle, I would fight and there would obviously be a chance of an accidental civilian death.

I really couldn't see myself killing anyone for my country unless it was in true defense of the country. It seems like the second world war was the last time that happened. A case might be made for Korea as well. Vietnam, Iraq, no way.

[Tetris_Iguana]

41. I've never found myself in war

But if I were to somehow find myself (ie be drafted) in a war, I imagine that would happen at some point.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. Under exceptional circumstances maybe

I probably would have bombed Germany like my dad did as a B-17 pilot in World War II. In my opinion, German civilians were complicit with their government in enabling the Nazi war machine to exist and kill thousands upon thousands of civilians across Europe, including in the death camps. I certainly wouldn't have done it gladly.

[Iggo]

44. Does that include civil war?

[Half-Century Man]

45. I never found myself in the position of active military shooter.

But, I have thought about it long and hard.
If, in a military situation, I was sighted on someone at a distance I could not clearly define as military or civilian, whom I perceived as a threat (or potential threat); could I pull the trigger?
If approached by an individual dressed as a civilian or clearly a civilian carrying an unknown object, who refused to halt or set the object down; could I pull the trigger?
If, after spending 60% or a tour of duty looking at your comrades (or what is left of your comrade) suffering grievous injuries from incoming ordnance; could I hold back on pulling the trigger?

The only was to actually know is experience it.

Live peacefully everyone. I think we are better off not knowing.

For what it's worth; I clicked yes.

[MohRokTah]

47. Deliberately killing non-combatants is a violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as the UCMJ

And direct order to deliberately kill non-combatants is an un-lawful order and must be disobeyed under the UCMJ.

[woo me with science]

60. Yet it is policy now. US government admits deliberately aiming bombs at children.

US government admits deliberately aiming bombs at children.

They have approved the practice. And we have already had ghoulish posts here attempting apologism for this depravity.

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

The US Military Approves Bombing Children
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021930268

"Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931789

[Rex]

48. It would all depend on if they are shooting at me or not.

Are they armed, do they intend on killing everyone in sight? Kind of a broad question. I would never shoot an unarmed civilian.

[n2doc]

49. The US has done so in every major war I know of

Sometimes we fess up that it was a crime (My Lai) sometimes we don't (Firebombing Tokyo, the Atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Now we mostly use drones to accomplish this, and call them 'mistakes'.

[RobertEarl]

50. It must be ok

The only person I know of in jail because of civilians being killed is:

Chelsea Manning

[Adam051188]

52. only if they're non caucasians. then it's ok. i think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

[enid602]

53. repubs

Only Republicans. Maybe Obama could use a few pointers from Bibi.

[NaturalHigh]

54. I would go to prison first...

but I can't honestly say what the answer would have been twenty years ago when I was in the military.

[bluedigger]

55. Maybe.

Would I target civilians with small arms fire? No. Would I bomb the oil refineries at Ploiesti? Probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

War's a dirty business, and doesn't always make for easy answers. I envy those with moral certitude. I tend to see a lot of gray between the black and the white.

[F4lconF16]

57. I would go to jail

before serving as part of a military force. The only reason I would come to that point is if there were to be another draft. So my answer for what I think your question asked is no, and I would sooner be arrested than kill in the name of my country.

That said, I don't know if I would never kill someone. If someone presented a clear and present danger to others, like in the NY nuke situation presented above, maybe? I don't know. If they presented a danger to only one person? Is one life worth another? Are innocents worth more than the perpetrators? I don't know. My value of life is too high to say yes. Even an "enemy" trying to kill me might not be enough. I think I might, but...

Not to mention, I don't know if there ever would be a situation where I have conclusive proof of the necessity of someone's death. In defense of a friend or family? Probably more likely. Again, I don't know. There is a lot of gray area, and these are questions that I've thought about before and still don't have a good answer to.

[snooper2]

59. not a very good scenario you are providing, but you know that LOL

I'd kill a teabagger going after our President any day---

how about you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. No.

[snooper2]

62. expected, but kind of sad, even my cat Samy would kick some teabagger assassin ass

And he doesn't have opposable thumbs, but still has nails

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Silly me. I still believe in trials and am against the death penalty.

In reference to your other post. Would you kill drone operators who assassinate children?

[snooper2]

64. if it was proven as murder in a court of law, -death- maybe, depends on the sentence

We have a shitload of assholes who have raped children, toddlers and babies to deal with first

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Why "first"? Does killing children not count as heinous?