Should a bomber pilot go ahead and bomb a civilian population center and almost certainly kill and maim many innocent civilians to possibly kill one or two " insurgents?"
2006-06-20 05:08:34 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No!!! There are over 7000 soldiers who have moved to Canada, AWOL, because they said no. A lot more than that AWOL in Europe and Africa. I applaud them and say that they are the bravest of them all.
2006-06-20 05:12:21 · answer #1 · answered by C P R 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes we should pelt insurgents with bullets and bombs at all costs. Eventually the civilian population around them if they are truely innocent will start to help us police more and more. Leading to the break up of more insurgent and terrorist cells, as well as leading to a higher recruitment and morale of Iraqi military, and police forces which in turn helps to bring security to their own country so we can finish the job faster.
On the same note any service member who deliberatly targets civilians knowingly should be charged to the full extent of the law. This should not include civilians who happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and whose deaths or injuries are simply part of collateral damage.
2006-06-20 05:49:59 · answer #2 · answered by aurastin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a standard code of conduct which soldiers follow if it goes against that they can refuse the order. They will be court Marshall later for not following a direct order but will be found not guilty if the order he refused goes against the code of conduct. As for innocent civilians I have to say this if they knew the insurgents were near them and they don't report it and still stay there chances are they are supporters. So they no longer fall under innocent.
2006-06-20 05:24:50 · answer #3 · answered by Jeff L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what about the case where that refusal which saved the innocent lives AND the insurgents eventually let to those one or two terrorists coming to the US and detonating a nuclear bomb that kills millions?
You must believe that dropping the bombs, or firing a missile, or pulling a trigger is a part of a bigger plan to increase the chances of security for those at home. If you don't, you had no reason to raise your right hand and swear to serve in the military.
2006-06-20 05:19:00 · answer #4 · answered by lunatic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No soldiers have to follow orders, but they do have a choice. If you think about it you might trade two insurgents for 10 civilians. Now if you think about the 20-50 killed by a single insurgent bombing you are saving lives.
2006-06-20 05:13:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no..he shouldn't..in fact we should let all insurgents approach our positions as long as they are accompanied by a "civilian". We should get rid of all bombs nuclear and otherwise because collateral damage is totally unacceptable ever. We really should be looking into lower power non lethal weapons ( like police use) for our troops in Iraq just in case someone misses their target or a civilian gets in the way. Besides why should we kill these poor people if we can stop them. We might not have to even fight them if we'd play nice and let their friends go who we've been mistreating in Guantanamo. Yep...kill them with kindness, that's what i say. cough
P.S. I think we need a whole new tactic...Maybe we could supply our troops with goodies to give out to everyone over there to win their hearts and minds..things like Dixie Chicks CD's..stuff like that.
2006-06-20 06:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Servicemembers are told to not obey unlawful orders. As for innocent civilians, I was there and they are never targeted. Takr the case of Zarqawi though, his 16 year-old wife was in the buidling that we destroyed with 2 500-pound bombs. Was she an innocent civilian? Hell no, she was an accomplice.
You watch too many movies if you believe soldiers are immoral, mindless robots. I was there and was constantly shocked by the maturity and judgement displayed by the 18 and 19 year-olds out there.
2006-06-20 05:16:17 · answer #7 · answered by Richard M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you better follow your orders. When you are in a war you have to remember that you have a job to do no matter what it is, and to fight for you country. Those one or two "insurgents" as you say are obvisouly important if they give you the order to do so....
Did they think it was unethical when they flew 747's into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and in the field in Penn..... They didnt care about our innocent civilians when they did that....
Its war, you do what you have to do and put it behind you...
2006-06-20 05:22:43 · answer #8 · answered by Don 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A military officer must complete any order he is instructed to do by his senior. The soldier signed up for military service and they must be fully aware of the things they must do. If he feels it is unethical to bomb and kill people, he shouldn't be a fighter pilot.
2006-06-20 05:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by Kris 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you signed up..you should have known what you were getting into, you chose it, you need to follow your orders as a respectable soldier
over 10,000 americans were killed on 9/11.....and they werent trying to kill a major power or targeting any enlisted or "important"(military wise) people....they were aiming for JUST civilians, except the flight that crashed, he may have been heading for the white house but he was going to kill 70 civilians with it........they werent thinking about the innocent people they killed
2006-06-20 05:19:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is supposed to follow the order.
And usually, the people around the insurgents are just as guilty as the insurgents. He should trust that it is the right thing to do.
Oh, and running to Canada is for cowards... in the 1960's. We have a volunteer army now, moron.
2006-06-20 05:12:35 · answer #11 · answered by Neerdowellian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋