[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Also, not everybody in the military signs up to "Kill people." A lot of people join so they can get a college education or be noble. The war is secondary to that, and a lot of them don't want to be in a situation which they are forced to participate in In the past, a lot of wars had draftees, so the people really didn't want to be there.

Im sure most people dont join the military to kill people. Im sure most of them do to, like you said, the college education or the money or just dont have much else to do with their lives. However they know that going to war and being in a situation where they have to kill someone is a real possibility. When they decide to join up that was a decision you made that put you one step closer to that situation. Whereas when you are in your home and someone kicks your door in to rob you or whatever you made no decision. You were just placed in that situation.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Which brings me to my next point: one of the key justifications I've heard for war, especially concerning the difference between a soldier and an assassin, is that soldiers aren't really supposed to be going somewhere to kill people. War could be said to be the perpetual placing of trained killers into situations in which they will have to defend themselves in order to achieve an objective, for the sake of themselves and loved ones.

That is a very idealistic way to look at it but I can see what you mean. Armies are for defensive purposes in a perfect world.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The purpose of war is never to kill people.

I believe there are some Hutus in Africa that would disagree with you on this. However for the most part you are correct. For those of us that live in the "civilized" world killing people is never the purpose of war, its just a byproduct. You cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs. If you are a soldier holding a fortified position and a bunch of guy come running at you with automatic weapons what is the best way of stopping them from killing you and/or getting past you to whoever or whatever you are defending?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The intent of war is generally to capture stuff and make it so that the enemy can't attack you. This can be achieved in multiple ways, not just by killing people. Incapacitating a person, demoralizing the enemy etc. are all alternatives to the actual killing of people.

Incapacitating an attacker isnt always a viable option. I am in agreement with you that when it is possible it should be done. Nonlethal weapons and technology have only recently made huge advancements and many groups such as police departments use them. However on the battlefield they are still "around the corner" and lethal force is still the only viable option in many situations.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

And, interestingly, in self-defense, (imprisonment as far as I am saying) and also war, killing somebody after they have been incapacitated or are unable to fight back is a crime (or a war crime).

Totally with you on this one. Again I would like to point out that Im only really for killing people after they have repeatedly assaulted and/or killed and either show no remorse or interest in rehabilitation. I would rather put them down before they put someone else down.