Moral Killing

One of the hardest things about returning home from a combat zone is coming to the realization that the rules have changed. Figuring out what is right and what is wrong isn't as easy as reading the federal and state laws. Morals and values are different in garrisson than in war. Killing is no longer acceptable. It was okay in combat when there was a positively identified enemy combatant. You get an award if you kill the bad guy. Killing women and children isn't okay, even if the women and children are supplying food, weapons and intelligence to the guy shooting at you. Back home all killing is wrong, except for maybe an unborn child in some states. Killing an animal is okay if you have a license and it is hunting season or you work on a farm or in a slaughter house. Raising the animal to fight another animal is not okay, but training humans to beat the crap out of another human is perfectly fine and its even shown on television so anybody can watch. In fact violence on tv is more okay than sex. Of course this doesn't mean the act of loving another person physically is worse than beating someone, it's just morally correct to not televise the act of loving. Of course if one shows sexual love towards a minor this is the most evil of all sins, even more so than beating a child. It's okay for a 40-year-old to have sex with a 30-year-old, but it's not okay for an 18-year-old to have sex with a 16-year-old. A 16-year-old may or may not be treated as an adult by the legal system for certain crimes, but they can never buy cigarettes or alcohol. Alcohol and cigarettes contribute to more deaths than marijuana, but smoking a joint can ruin a career, but being a drunk will only require treatment of some kind buy many employers. An employer can of course overwork and underpay an employee but employees cannot take home a pencil or pen from work as that is considered stealing. The government can bill you for a trip to the ambulance if a cop storms into your house and tasers you, but if a regular every day joe walks into someone else's house, beats them and then drives them to the hospital and asks for money for the ride a whole assortment of charges will be given to the person doing the beating. Of course beating someone up is a show of strength and manliness but walking away from a fight is shown as a sign of cowardice. As an infantryman I could never pick or choose my fights but as a civilian if myself and a hundred other guys are told to fight another group and we do so without question this will probably be considered a gang fight. Those who order soldiers into battle usually do not fight themselves but if a civilian orders others to fight without doing so as well it is looked down upon by authorities as well as those who are fighting, unless it is the owner of the UFC or some other similar organization. All these things get mixed and mashed in my head when trying to figure out what the best thing to do is under every circumstance. I'm sure there is a clear right and wrong but I am even more sure it is not written in man's laws. The morals we are taught to live by each day don't make much sense when you put them all together, but when looking within I know deep inside that I will do the right thing when tested. Now I must ask myself, have our leaders done the right thing?