|
a question of morals.
my questions are simple.
I'd like to see your opinion on my latest moral quandry. hypothetically put yourself in the shoes of a soldier in iraq or afghanistan, you have the fortitude to engage and destroy the average insurgent with whatever weapon you can grab, be it a bayonet, or a mark 19 grenade launcher. you are on patrol in the streets of samarra or some other craphole city, and some 12 year old boy comes around the corner with a PKM(russian assault rifle) and opens up on your squad.
1: would you open fire with the intent to destroy the target, or to injure and disarm?
2:is it right, in a moral sense, to shoot and kill this kid?
those of you who instantly say no are missing the point of this exercise. use quotes if you feel the need.
you fellas that like to act like a box of rubber dicks, please contribute.
you normal civilians are welcome to answer, i just like to let those specific groups know that their opinion, no matter how depraved, is still valuable.
thank you for your time and patience.
-gunner
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Relationships category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Work/School Relationships?
Kill the fucker.
I don't care if you put a glock in the hands of your newborn infant, if he somehow figured out how to fire it, I would blow his head off if he endangered my life. There would be no hesitation on my part to kill.
War is war, and if war is what you want, then you are going to have to deal with that. Innocent civilians will die. Far too much blood will be shed. It's all part of a package deal. If you can't handle the responsibility of voting for war, then don't support it.
]
I am not a soldier and I am finding this hard to answer, yet I'm honored that a U.S. soldier has given me the chance to address a difficult issue with which I thankfully have no direct experience. Bearing that in mind, my answer is purely theoretical and somewhat idealistic. I don't ever want to be in your place, and I am thankful that men and women like you are willing to be there for me.
Noncombatants and prisoners of war must be treated as morally equivalent. If a person is unarmed and unable to defend or attack, then you have a duty as a human being to value this person's life.
As a soldier, you have a moral duty to kill the enemy. That is your function in a war. In battle, your allegiance is to your unit, your country, and yourself.
In battle, it is absolutely essential to dehumanize the enemy. You must kill or be killed, period. Morality has no place in battle. In the case of a twelve-year-old firing at you and your unit, you only need ask yourself: WOULD HE HESITATE TO KILL YOU? No. What good is a dead soldier?
If U.S. soldiers are unwilling to shoot enemy combatants who are children, then the enemy will exploit that weakness. There are no rules in war. You voluntarily adopt rules of engagement because you are a professional United States soldier. But the enemy in Iraq follows only one rule: kill as many as you can.
If you are unwilling to kill a lethally armed child, then be prepared to die by his bullet.
Now, I must step down from my soapbox and be honest with you. It would tear me apart inside if I had to choose between my life and the life of a child. How could I blame an Iraqi child for doing what he was told was right? What choice has anyone given him? He is more disadvantaged than I will ever know, and he doesn't really deserve to die, even if he is shooting at me. Martial law is all he has ever known. He is a child, and he deserves better. This is my conscience speaking. My conscience makes that lethally armed child into the innocent child who lives down the block from me in rural America. What kind of monster shoots such a child? THAT IS WAR.
Soldier, I am not worthy to stand in your presence. May God guide your hand.
Dr. Chad
]
Being a normal civilian and having a box of rubber dicks, I feel that should answer your question.
If I were in that situation, it is killed or be killed. It does not matter if he is 12 or not. In Iraq and Afghanistan they use women and children as weapons to kill. These people are mostly willing to do so (if not completely willing). I cannot say that it would not seriously fuck me up, but I would kill him. "It's either my life or yo life, and I ain't leavin' I like breathin'" (Dr. Dre "The Watcher", The Chronic 2001)
]
It's not right to shoot and kill a kid because, if he has grown up in this environment, he knows no better. I personally think I would carry a gun around if soldiers were in my town lol.
On the other hand, if he is posing a REAL threat (i.e. if he is not a real threat he will probably drop his gun and run once he sees a bunch of soldiers turn their guns on HIM, so if he actually fires the gun) then shoot to injure, yes. Not to permanently injure. Not to kill. Maybe even not to injure, just shoot at the ground by him or something to scare him off. Just be careful he's not gonna get angry and shoot right back...
I would not 'open fire'. I would somehow or other assign one person to 'fire' and the others to raise their guns but not to use them. Until you know whether this child is fully aware of his actions and completely intent on killing you or not, I don't believe you have the right to set a load of guns on him. One is enough for anybody.
The real question is not is it moral, but could you live with the fact that you had taken away a twelve year old's life?
]
I am a civilian, and I have very good morals. I know exactly what I would do in 'the soldiers' shoes. I would open fire with the intent to destroy the target, or to injure and disarm?
In some countries the legal age is 13 years old. They are considered adults. You are defending your life and the life of your squad. Kill or be killed. Yes, it is right in a moral sense, to shoot and kill this kid!! He has no problems trying to kill you. Be safe
]
More Questions:<<< Previous Question
| Next Question >>>
|
|