Is it wrong to call a soldier "baby killer"?

Hitlers men were still found guilty of Nazi war crimes even though they used that tired "I was just following orders" excuse. Our soldiers should be held equally accountable. By the time you are old enough to serve you should know the difference between right and wrong.

US Soldiers are permitted to disobey an order if they feel it is unconstitutional or goes against any of the geneva conventions.

Sooo, generally..... no it's not wrong to call them a baby killer.

Assuming they HAVE killed a baby of course.

What if the soldier is himself unaware that there are children inside?

A soldier who kills a baby is a baby-killer. A bus driver whose brakes fail and who hits an SUV with a baby inside who dies as a result is a baby-killer.

susy...you are heading right into the worst emotional components of the viet nam conflict and the turmoil that visited on everyone.

I think there are only two indictments one might lay on a soldier.

First, if he knowingly violates the codes and rules of war.

Second - and this is the contentious one - if he is too ready to simply believe what he is told (we are good, they are evil).

There is no question that soldiers can have honor (possibly, even most can be described that way). But of course that applies to all soldiers on either side. The project for which they go to war may well not be honorable however, and that reflects on them if they are part of the project. That they are likely to 'believe' the enterprise is honorable is predictable - such a mindstate is necessary for war to be waged and troublemakers are often very adept at producing such a mindstate.

And soldiers are a dime a dozen, sadly. There is little difficulty finding them (usually young males) as evidenced by all the goddamn wars we've seen.

Yes. Unless you saw him kill a baby.

We have many beloved vets here. I wish you'd consider changing your title. It is wrong for them to have to look at it, especially when some of them have no doubt heard it screamed at them.

Believe me, I have a valid reason to ask. A couple, actually.
But first, I must disagree with one of your statements, Blatham; (much to my surprise.) You said: "The project for which they go to war may well not be honorable however, and that reflects on them if they are part of the project."

I disagree that a dishonorable war reflects on the soldiers who fought it, for the most part. They don't get a lot of choice once they're soldiers. The soldiers in Iraq right now may wish they were not there, but there is little they can do about it without legal action coming against them.

My question has two components:
if one is forced to kill or cause children to die in battle, is it better to lie about it or to tell the truth, as John kerry did? If an atrocity is happening, should we pretend it's not because it might reflect badly on soldiers who are obeying orders? Should not the public know what has been done in their name? Are we better off ignorant?

If one is made to kill or cause the death of a child, and is unable to cope with it, yet has more time to do to finish his service commitment, should he be expected to stay on and continue to do so? Even if he is obviously suffering mental and emotional upset of great severity?

If a soldier is sent to a country to liberate a people and instead is ordered to launch grenades at places where children reside, whether this information is known and reported to him or not, does he then have the right to say "I no longer intend to fight this war?"

Not in the US Marines he doesn't.

My friend launched a grenade into a building where children were. Some of these children were burned to death. He was barely 19 years old at that time, and has not had a decent night's sleep since that episode. One boys father, crying his eyes out, accused him of murdering his son. (The poor child lived for days before succumbing to his burns). My friend enlisted in the marines not just to try to better his lot in life and make his mother proud, but to help free Iraqi people. Burning children to death was not what he had in mind. I am extremely
pissed at what has happened to this good young man because of our gung-ho president.

Yet when I posted that this young man had gone AWOL, after receiving NO HELP from the marines (Suck it up boy, this is war) many here jumped all over him, calling him unpatritic, dishonorable, a scumbag, a coward, etc.

Sofia, I unerstand what you're saying, but I am trying to call attention to this subject, and that title seems to have done the trick.
Whether or not anyone calls my friend a babykiller, in his eyes, he is one. In my eyes, he is a victim of our government, as so many others were, are and always will be.
In VietNam, from what I've heard from some vets, children were armed or wired, leaving little choice; kill or be killed. Not much of a choice, but one I do not fault them for.

suzy

This is one of the ugly and complicated parts of war. Our codes of civility and respect for life are turned upside down and I can only imagine the internal turmoil that must be a consequence for many who have to go to war, particularly where that war is of uncertain necessity or value. Please contact me if a Canadian might be of any help to your friend.

The point on which you have disagreed is not an easy one, I understand. But I don't think we can procede in any other manner than to hold that any soldier who goes into battle has some responsibility to understand whether the overall project is justifiable and then to refuse to join in the operation in any aggressive capacity if he concludes the project immoral. If we don't operate in this manner, then we shall always go to war whenever someone in power tells us to.

thinking

(Answered without once leaving the keyboard)

Is it wrong to call me "Whitey"? then

or Honky, or jewboy ?


(heh, heh,

I'm not Jewish, but
some think so)
and if you thought that I was
you might call me

jewboy

or something else

Mick or Spic
or
shittkicker goat roper redneck
Queer Queen of the May,

if that's what you thought,
or called thought,

you might say it,

especially if you thought it was safe,
that there wasn't a godamm thing I could do
to your big mouth and smiling eyes,
the sweat,

fear-sweat-

cuz you just might be wrong
about the
can't do crap about it
thing,

the fear-sweat glistening....

yo

baby killer

shucks, you don't know who you're talking to,
you're just talking.
and you don't know what you're talking about,
you're just talking,
you've never stood on the edge of a street,
or a jungle path
or a paddy
or a sun bleached, hot hot dune,
and wondered

fear-sweat glistening,

Is This IT?

baby killer

Is that all the ammo you've got?
Cuz I've got psycho-psychic sidekicks
with way more wounds than that little punk punch.

baby killer

Hell, we've killed more much more than that for you
you dumb sumbitch



we killed ourselves.



yo.

We're still standing
but we're as dead as those babies, boy.

So names will never hurt us
and
hate will never hurt us

and love will try to touch
our poor still hearts.

so
sittdown


you're blocking our view of eternity.



Joe Nation

joe

Are those your words?

"We're still standing
but we're as dead as those babies, boy."

That's what hurts me the most about the whole thing, Joe.

Just as many VietNam vets finally gave up trying to rejoin life, as have some soldiers in Iraq, I worry a lot what this kid might do if he doesn't get the proper help.
He did finally turn himself in; to a VA hospital.
He had been crying night and day and drinking constantly to try and blot it out, to no avail. He was in the hospital one day before they scooped him up and shipped him off to Camp Pendleton. Hopefully to their hospital and not on a plane back to Iraq.

I wondered that too, Joe.
And Blatham, thanks for your offer.

suzy

Please keep me posted on your friend's situation.

I don't know if/when/how I'll hear from him. Even in the VA hospital, he was only allowed one call. He called his mom, of course.
I get news of him only from my son. I've been a little frantic about his situation for months, but now it's in high gear, since he's back with the marines.

What I can't figure out is of what benefit would a soldier with post traumatic stress syndrome be to the corps? The war messed him up, and now they're going to punish him for it. I am disgusted.

I am mystified as to the source of your information. Having been a member of the Regular Army of the United States (which in 1970 meant i had joined as opposed to being drafted), and being both possessed of a good memory and a life-long fascination with history i can tell you the following:

We were taught that there are two types of orders, those being a lawful order and a direct order. Non-commissioned officers and warrant officers have the authority to issue lawful orders only. Commissioned officers are entitled to issue direct orders. A private soldier is legally entitled to refuse to obey an unlawful order. Without bothering with the, to me, rather obvious implications of refusing to obey any order, i will point out how difficult it is for any soldier after months of training isolated in that culture to even question, let alone refuse to obey an order.

Commissioned officers can issue direct orders, on their own responsibility, which the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires all private soldiers to obey. There is an article of the UCMJ which allows a soldier to appeal such an order, after the fact of the issuance of the order, and after having complied, to any other officer, who will then be required by that article to forward the appeal through the chain of command all the way to the Secretary of the Army. But the private soldier must obey the order.

It is amazing the amount of bullshit i have seen flying around lately about what the responsibilities of the soldier are.

Any soldier who knowingly kills a baby, without the act deriving from a direct order deserves to be called a baby killer. Any other situation begs the question. Soldiers are required to obey orders promptly and without question because to do otherwise endangers so many lives. Even a brief and shallow dip into the history of state militias in the United States will demonstrate amply that disaster strides in the wake of indiscipline. After the disasterous assault on the Federal position on Cemetary Ridge on the third day of the battle of Gettysburg, Robert Lee rode among the survivors stubmling back to Seminary Ridge, repeating to the men: "This is all my fault." He was absolutely correct. The commander is both ultimately and immediately responsible for the consequences of his orders. The private soldier is only subject to prosecution, and ought only be subject to condemnation for willful acts committed in contravention of, or without orders. The private soldiers of Lt. Willam Calley's company which committed the massacre at My Lai were not prosecuted, nor even given non-judicial punishment. Calley and Calley alone was responsible in the opinion of the court martial which found him guilty of twenty-two counts of pre-meditated murder, because he had, in the testimony of many witnesses, issued direct orders.

authority and death and an M-14
in the hands of an 18 yr old
there is no enemy that has a face
there is barely fear that gets from this moment
to the next.
there are no last words, or first words that come from the dead, the soon to die, or the soon to kill.
guts and arms and legs and brains fried are ageless and all out of uniform, there never was any killing done, there was only dying.
I never asked nor questioned right or wrong or living. there was no reason why or not, was a luxury not contemplated. I no longer mind, I don't remember who I was. when I got home I heard mothers crying "they're killing our babies" the ones I left behind.

And the correct response to a direct order is, "Sir." Not yes sir. "Yes sir implies the possibility of "No Sir."

set, dys, joe

I hope I've offended no one with my thoughts on this matter. For me, the dilemmas are addressed theoretically and from the viewpoint of a pacifist.