> It is unfathomable that a team of US military (people with families of their own no doubt), would all nod along and agree with your contention.

The Vietnam and Korean wars would like to have a word.

Your belief that the US military is guided by any kind of moral or ethical line is naïve at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726

▲

WarmWash a day ago | parent [-]

If the US military was unethical, it wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan.

The problem is fighting unethical enemies, because they do shit like use ambulances as troop transport, have soldiers dress the same as civilians, and given any kid old enough to shoot a rifle.

To your post more specifically, is there is no one holding these unethical enemies responsible. There are no history books, or journalists, or wikipedia articles about the insane shit they do.

The Taliban has a base where they truck in young boys to "service" the officers and it's lost to time. The US has a single ethics catastrophe, and they are held up for it for decades...

▲

surgical_fire a day ago | parent | next [-]

> If the US military was unethical, it wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan

You can be unethical and still profoundly incompetent.

▲

WarmWash a day ago | parent | next [-]

Smoking out villages and shooting everything that moves with cutting edge weaponry doesn't require much competence.

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

Which is why the US famously won the Vietnam war...

▲

WarmWash a day ago | parent [-]

If that was the case the My Lai Massacre would be meaningless, because the entire war would have been that.

▲

jackie293746 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The entire war was that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

nulld3v a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Genocide is usually not an efficient way to wage war. Even ancient armies usually did not slaughter entire towns, not because of ethics, but because fighting sucks and if you slaughter everybody you come across, nobody is going to surrender and every person you come across will fight you to the death.

I say usually, because there are some exceptions and nukes are one of them, they make genocide a viable war strategy. But even nuking Vietnam would not have worked, cause you will simply get nuked back.

▲

WarmWash a day ago | parent [-]

Its more that you make it clear that you will kill anyone who doesn't surrender. Then most people end up surrendering.

In modern militaries though, the expectation is that you will just leave civilians alone.

▲

surgical_fire 13 hours ago | parent [-]

There are some terrorist states that indiscriminately kill civilians though, such as Israel and the USA.

The worst thing people would do is surrendering in those cases.

▲

twirldat 10 hours ago | parent [-]

As opposed to who? Iran fired missiles at Israeli (and Arab) civilian areas, so did Hezbollah and Hamas when they used to have that capability.

	▲	surgical_fire 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's precisely what I expected. That people would pop up defending US atrocities by equating them with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. And you know what? You're right. Those are all terrorist organizations.

▲

cineticdaffodil a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]