O Sung Wu, why are they our enemies? ordinary people do not create wars, we are told by our Governments they are enemies, Vietnam was our enemy because we were told by an imperialist Government they were, look what happened there, China is fast becoming an enemy, likewise Russia, once again the ordinary people do not want to create wars with these people, but Governments do, we are also being brain washed into the terrorist syndrome when in actual fact these people have severe mental problems like Martin Bryant of years ago, Governments know this but prefer to use the word terrorist., Governments want us to become subservient to them, with unemployment rising, demonstrations will become not allowed, even on Monday we will be subject to internet policing by our present Government, our rights are disappearing.
This brief has nothing to do with the subject matter, but my feelings on that have been expressed here.

To O Sung Wu

Your premise that it is OK for governments "to send troops to kill our enemies, because they are the enemy", hardly explains the clear double standard of why it is OK to kill external enemies, but not internal ones, who are usually much worse enemies than the external ones.

As a student of military history, what has always struck me as the tragedy of war, was that governments sent their finest young men to kill another nations finest young men, for political reasons. Often those fine young men openly admired the courage and personnel qualities of the fine young enemies they were fighting and killing. And after the war was over, those self same former enemies continued to admire each other. British war veterans from the El Alemein and Tobruk batles attend the annual ceremony over Erwin Rommel's grave, and form friendships with Africa Korps veterans.
British naval seamen express admiration for the courage of Argentine pilots who flew though murderous AA fire to bomb them. Japanese and Australian veterans of the Kokoda Track battle, who in battle executed each others captured prisoners during that bitter fight, now sit down together in restaurants and swap war stories.

You think it is OK for the finest young men of any society to kill the finest young men of another "because they are the enemy."

But when it comes to the Ivan Milat's of this world (at least 7 young people murdered), or the Ted Bundy's (at least 36 young women raped and murdered) , or the Gary Ridgeway's (at least 60 young women raped and murdered), you consider their worthless lives sacrosanct. They must not be killed because you think it is inhumane to kill sadistic and deranged monsters.

That is the reasoning I do not understand.

Soldiers of the world would be better used fighting and shooting the Milat's, Bundy's and Ridgeway's of this world, as well as the Mafia, M19, Al Qaida, The Taliban, and the Narcotrafficantes, instead of each other. The world would be a much better place.

Hi there OJNAB & LEGO...

During the Indonesian Confrontation and the Vietnam war I was a member of the ARA. Consequently the government of the day determined Oz would provide troops to aid British forces to stop the Indonesians (Pres.SURKANO) from overthrowing Malaysia in 1964/65. And later on (about 1964) the AATTV was deployed, purely to assist the South Vietnam government to train their own troops. We'd all been repatriated back to OZ from Malaysia in 1965, and after a 'breather' we'd received another deployment advice, for South Vietnam. The thing is...

As a soldier it's not up to me to decide who I shall oppose. Otherwise why be in the military at all ? Neither is it a moral argument, it's simply a matter that once you sign on the 'dotted' line, you're sworn-in and are required to obey your commander's orders and directions, provided those they are lawful ? I couldn't imagine, Armed Forces of any Nation were comprised of individuals who examined every direction, order and ambush, from a strictly moral perspective. If that were to happen, you'd have utter chaos, and would most probably end up being eviscerated by the enemy ?

What I will readily confess to you both, when that moment comes during your deployment to any 'active combat zone', and you're required to put into action everything you've been taught - 'FOR REAL', all sorts of emotional and mental images, conspicuously come to the fore !

Concerning those dreadful criminals you've both cited, MILAT and ors. You'll not get any argument from me gentleman ! Remember I spent years as a copper, I reckon we'd all be on the same page concerning these types. Fortunately Ivan MALAT was not someone that I had anything to do with, fortunately for me at least. However, there were others just as evil, murderous and sinister as MILAT ? Someone I mentioned previously on this Forum, one Archie Beattie McCAFFERTY ? Perhaps you can Google him if you wish ? Personally, the only time I'd like to see Archie's name featured, is in the obituaries.

o sung Wu, I do agree with you that if you join the armed forces then that is the occupation you have chosen, you then must fight anywhere you are sent by the war lords (Governments).
Having been conscripted as an eighteen year old into the army, this is a different ball game, I did not choose that profession, but was ordered there by the Menzies Government, so any killing of young lads is blood on that Government hands when they were killed in the Vietnam & Korean wars, the Russian Cold War was also of concern to Menzies.
WW1 young lads joined because of King & Country, a war mainly connected to Royalty, Willhelm 11 of Germany, Victoria's grandson was a main agitator, why King is beyond me (joining the forces now you have to show allegiance to the old lady, would be better if Country only) also the white flower syndrome was alive and well, guilt if not joining was a stressful situation to them at that time.
WW2 was no better, the mother country needed you but did little in Singapore when they were needed, they soon run off and left it to the Americans.
Soldiers were ordinary men who basically were conscripted because they felt they should, and to protect their country from invasion.
Join the armed forces, to kill or be killed, that is your choice, but not conscription.
We have digressed away from the subject matter of " Death for Drugs".

Hi (again) OJNAB...

Indeed we've digressed from the topic. Although I'm against the death penalty, it doesn't mean I'm all soft and forgiving for blokes like these two. If it were within my own purview they would receive a sentence consistent with the seriousness of their offence, together with their attitudes they both cleverly concealed upon their arrest.

The arrogance they both managed to conceal, as well as the contempt and scorn they maintained, of the Indonesian justice system - much like, '...they're only a third world country, we'll be able to manipulate and exploit their naivety, every chance we get...' this type of indifference and insouciant dismissal and thinking, is often vehement amongst such criminals from developed nations ?

Sadly for them they've greatly underestimated their captor's alleged 'naivety' entirely, and are now looking down the barrel (literally) of half a dozen (modern) military assault rifles ! SUKUMARAN particularly will no longer be in a position to physical intimidate these small in statue, but tough Indonesian police officers ? Do I have compassion for them ? Not a scintilla, nothing, zip ! That said, I'm still, wholly against Capital Punishment !

The only departure from my implacable and resolute stance against the death penalty, as I've indicated previously in another similar topic ? As an example, if a member of ISIS is caught, having just committed wilful murder, during a terrorist attack, he should be executed contemporaneously for that offence. Provided his/her criminal conduct and his/her identity has been witnessed, and beyond 'any' doubt whatsoever.

OJNAB and LEGO, I believe I've more or less exhausted my belief's and my reasoning. Moreover, I've probably not satisfied any of your questions sufficiently, especially those queries concerning 'morality' precisely ? Your example of soldiers killing enemy soldiers, all the while society's enemies (our worst criminals) are kept alive, and at taxpayers expense, a seemingly contradictory state of affairs, and I'd agree with you ?

Such philosophical uncertainty, together with dubious criterion impacting upon our society's sense of morality, shall continue to reman unresolved I expect ?

Drug peddlers don't harm anyone.
What they do is make poison available for wilful fools, knowing what it is, to opt to take it voluntarily (and even pay money for it), contemptuously brushing aside the mountains of information flooding the public arena which makes it perfectly clear what drug abuse will do.
The purpose of the war on drugs is to maintain their street value and to fill the gaols, leaving inadequate space for imprisoning those who commit aggression against hapless victims who have not volunteered (and even paid money!) to be its recipients. Hence the epidemic of street thuggery and domestic violence.