[Dead Mans Hand]

@JoeA
And how is that statement hypocritical? I suppose you do realize that hypocrite is a negative denomination for someone, but I suggest if you further plan to invoke the term that you first grasp the scope of what it entails.

To further expound on my previous statement:
In an invaded nation, the citizens have not chosen to be born into the nation which is being invaded, thus are innocent. They have three options, to interfere, grudgingly accept, or accomodate.

-Those who interfere actively choose to oppose the invasion and are fair game, in my opinion. Yes that includes entire villages, if children have been used to further that goal in anyway whatsoever their parents/guardians have actively chosen to put them in a position in which they are targets themselves - if not, well euthanasia is more humanitarian than abandoning them.
-If the citizens don't like it, but actively choose to remain passive durring the invasion, they are not acceptable targets.
-If the citizens actively choose to support and aid the invasion, then they are allies. But given you're aghastness to killing, I would expect you to look down on the killing of traitors after an invasion has been repelled. As that is only balanced.

Finaly, punative actions are punishment for actions - therefore whether extreme or not are logicaly justifiable.

@Iceman
I assure you I am not Skybird. Sorry again for the length, I just feel given the diversity of view points on this topic that everyone deserves a response. That and I'm verbose.

@Xabba
So you're arguement has changed from "hmm... whatever" to "I'll hurt you if you don't agree." On to the historical corrections.
I didn't say you don't think any units have never commited war crimes, but I said it would only be far for you to judge every unit by the actions of a few. You've said nothing about the SS Divisions that had absolutely no charges against them after the war, have you? So I assume that you judge every member of the Royal Navy for what happend in Argentina.

As for the political indoctrination, isn't every soldier tought his country is supreme, his cause is the most just, and he and his brethren are the supreme warriors of their time? If you think otherwise, than I hate to inform you that basic training in all armies includes such teachings.

Mhmmmm... and the US and British frequency of prostitution was disturbing in WWII but I don't go throwing that around, so what, soldiers are soldiers - comparing them to civilians is unjust. Also, the "wholesale" massacres of villages in the Russian stepps was left to the Einsatzgruppen, which were reqruited from all SS branches as well as other military units. They did not operate under the military, rather, they worked for the Gestapo.

To you an honorable man is someone that does the right thing in the face of evil, however right and evil are both totally subjective terms which is to say right to you is wrong to others.

Any solider that tells his CO to F* off is a traitor and should be prompty executed infront of the platoon. That is, grabbed by the back of the shirt collar, forced to his knees, shot once behind the left ear, left dead face down.

As for hypocracy, I again encourage you to enrich your definition of that word as you are using it inappropriately. I have yet to say anything that is contradictory, infact, you applying vastly different standards to Allied units and leaders than Nazi units and leaders - making you the hypocrite.

@Kisaki
Marines and Spec Ops units are supposed to be psychotic. All soldiers are inherently weapons themselves that are little more than point and click. A military full of enlisted scholars would be a wreck. As for your friend that's a former sniper, kudos to his take on a soldiers place.

@Xabba
This is circular because you are refusing to seperate military unit, SS, from Waffen SS, from Totenkopf, from Nazi.