Yes, but is the objective worth the killing? Who as the right to decide that? — WerMaat

The superiors and politicians believe that. They are the ones who decide the battle and the results. But it's up to you to decide whether it was the right thing to do.

And should not those that DO the killing have both choice and responsibility? — WerMaat

They are responsible of their actions, but it's justifiable if you ask me. This is war and both sides, soldiers or leaders, know that if they let up, they will lose possibly everything.

Wrong side? Is there ever a right side, in any war?
Soldiers kill on both sides, and on both sides people suffer and die.
And all to often, the political outcome is not really worth all the blood and pain after all. Look at Afghanistan, the country is still unstable after almost 2 decades of international military intervention. — WerMaat

This is why war is almost always morally ambiguous. It is why there isn't really good and bad guys. The wars that have are not morally ambiguous would be WW2. Also, yes lots of the times, it isn't worth the effort like Afghanistan for example. However the reason why politicians still do what they do in war is because of their "interests". America in particular fought lots of wars not for the sake of morality, but for their interests. There are better way, but it's sad to see they still resort to violence when more peaceful ways can be utilised.

War is not the only instrument of political change. There ARE other ways, better ways, I'm glad we agree on that. — WerMaat

Indeed we agree. War is to be always a last resort when all else fails. But nowadays, war is used for interests. It is the sad thing to be honest. But greed can do lots of things Herr @WerMaat

I like those moments in history much better when a seemingly small thing suddenly turns things around. Take the opening of the borders between Eastern and Western Germany.
In 1989, the SED (Eastern German) politicians were discussing to gradually lift traveling and emigration restrictions. But the new law was still under revision and discussion.Then, in a press conference on 9th November, Mr Schabowski of the SED announced that no visa would be needed any more to travel to West Berlin. And a journalist asked, eagerly: "And when will this new regulation be in force?" And Mr. Schabowski wasn't sure and said: "Well, as to my knowledge.. immediate"
And in the same night tens of thousands of people streamed onto the streets, overran the border stations and literally started tearing down the Berlin Wall.
In this night, the soldiers of the border control could have opened fire and used deadly force to keep the people back... it wouldn't have been the first time it happened. But their superiors were floundering and at some point Oberstleutnant Harald Jäger decided to take matters into his own hands. Rather than using violence to restore order, he commanded the border control forces to stop passport control, open the gates and let people through.
Now, THIS is a person I respect, even though he was a soldier. — WerMaat

Many thanks for the info. I hope we can all be united one day to be honest. Even though I am interested in military history at times, I learnt over the course of the years about War and it's effects. We should avoid it at all costs if we can.

I don't see how that would elevate the soldier to a higher status than any other key professions. A doctor, a politician, a policewoman, a sewage worker and the administrator of your local water treatment facility: All of them have the job to serve the public and make your life safe. The sewage worker is probably more important to your comfort and safety than the average soldier. — WerMaat

I never implied that soldiers are not the only people to be heavily respected. We have doctors who saved lives, politicians who actually are not corrupt, even office workers have a role that deserves respect. How much respect given depends on how you view. Also, never did I want to imply that soldiers have a higher standing than most professions.

Oh, wait, I can think of one difference: The other professions don't usually KILL people and destroy property and infrastructure. — WerMaat

That's the cost of war. These men have to kill people in order to accomplish the objective.

On humankind, not on the single nation.
Impossible, you might say... it's human nature, you might say. Well, humans do a lot of impossible things that go against their natural instincts - why not this one? — WerMaat

It's possible. It's nice to see someone that believes that anything is possible. Most people wouldn't say it's possible, but like you said, if we can do some impossible shit, why can't we do this too? All it takes is everyone to believe in the one vision to progress through peace. How that is achieved is a different story.

It's sadly rather easy manipulate people into committing horrible violence. — WerMaat

It's why I pity the Nazis and Japanese for being this so easily manipulated by a bunch of men with beliefs that are simply immoral by our standards. Some stand out like Franz Stigler or possibly Joseph Gangl, but lots of these men have to fight the wrong side of the war simply because they believed it was right.

Fighting for what you believe in doesn't deserve respect at all without qualification. It entirely depends what you believe in, and even then, you should be judged on your actions over and above your beliefs. The Japanese soldiers who attacked Pearl Harbour and tortured prisoners of war in horrifying ways do not deserve respect. The Nazi soldiers who invaded Europe do not deserve respect. Isis soldiers do not deserve respect. — S

Yet it's something to go against what the entire world disagrees with. If you were an ISIS soldier, you'd be hunted down across the entire globe. If you were a Nazi, no one would spare you and no one would give a damn about you. If you were a Japanese, you'd already have honor with the Bushido code, even though it was taken too far. It's very bold to against the world, and these men did it. It's something to consider.

So a soldier goes to war, and he guns down some women and children, and rapes some of the women, but he's a soldier after all, so he's entitled to respect?

No.

Do you think you have some example where a soldier deserves respect in spite committing an immoral act? — S

A Nazi and a Japanese soldier is an example. But I don't hold them in high regards. I don't like them, but the thing I respect about them is them fighting for what they believe in. Even though it's cruel and even though they have been blinded by propaganda, they still fought in battlefields and they still fought against thousands of men. But that's the only thing that deserves respect among them. The rest of the deeds like rapes, torture, etc. Do not absolutely deserve respect at all.

No, certainly not. — S

Why so?

One: Not all soldiers have served in an actual war. — WerMaat

Yes I admit that not all soldiers has seen war. However, it's not just the experience of war that deserves respect. The role of a soldier, the training they undergo, and the fact that each soldier serves their nation is all deeds worthy of respect.

Two: War takes a toll on all people touched by it.
I would just give you an example I witnessed. There was a cute little girl, about 5 years old. She lived in a refugee camp where I volunteered and seemed to be all lively and happy, playing with the others. Then one day, somewhere in the city some fireworks went off.
And suddenly she came running into the building, desperate, crying for her father, shouting "Yaty al harb, yaty al harb!" - "The war has come".
Would you call her a soldier, too? I would not. But I admire her, because she survived. — WerMaat

Yes it does take a toll on people too. However, I'm discussing about soldiers here and not civilians. Also no, I wouldn't call the little girl a soldier because she simply isn't part of a military organisation. She's just a victim. I do hope she's alright though.

So hello (Please do not mind the rather cringy name. I have no idea why I went with such a name when I first made this account.) and I will just state my say on this.

These questions all boil down to one main inquiry; do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? — SethRy

Yes I do believe that every soldier and I mean every soldier should be respected. Why I believe so is simply the fact that every soldier has gone through war and may have lived to tell the tale. It does not seem so convincing but war can indeed take a toll on a soldier's mind a lot, which can lead to decisions from a soldier that I think most of us would consider "immoral" to say the least. An example of this would be PTSD, Shell shock, and a few others like CSR. However, excluding CSR, the rest happens to full effect after a war so this may be excluded. Yet the one thing war can do is change a person's morality if you ask me. You can send in the most patriotic, the smartest, and the most religious man you know, but in the end a bullet wouldn't care. Soldiers have to go through a hell that many of us would not simply comprehend. The sound of guns firing at every direction, the screams of men desperately calling for help, but only to die in the end under the bullets of agony, the fires of bombs and shells reigning terror in every corner and every street, and yet there is so much more than just that. These soldiers, regardless of where they stand, fight so hard and relentless in all they can do, only to capture five feet of ground, and repeat the same process before they die, or win the battle, only to fight another battle once more. The very essence of death lingers in every place a soldier goes, for in war, a bullet would never care. Yet against all the pain, against all the odds, these soldiers still fight on and on no matter what. Even if death and agony lingers about, these men delve deeper into the hearts of hell no matter how much ground they captured along the way. This will, this determination is what deserves all the respect we can give for a soldier no matter what side is he or she on because whether the soldier is a philosopher, a poet, or a writer, a bullet would never care.