in my dictionary they are

yes they are..but in this case the laws allow it.

Technically yes. Soldiers are not given a choice in their actions when in war. They have superiors and even the President ordering/condoning the killing. I know when my son was over in Iraq if he were ever to have been in the situation, I would want him to kill, not be killed!

This reminds me of a very fitting quote: All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

i guess, i know that i could never be a soldier...i could never kill anyone.

even worse. they are rented-by-the-state murderers... hitmen of the regime... (that would make a good book title) :) although i think they would find it a real insult to hear/read that.

The typical meaning of "murder" applies to acts done by an individual for their own gain or protection, i.e. a selfish act. Acts by the state (which include the acts of soldiers) aren't normally classified as murder, because they're done on behalf of the state. The moral questions surrounding a soldier's behavior aren't going to be solved by trying to tweak the meaning of the word "murder". It's customary to let soldiers off the hook if they're following legitimate orders of their commanders, and if those commanders are conforming to conventional standards of warfare. However, the fact that society has more-or-less agreed to give soldiers a free ride on the moral judgment issue doesn't actually excuse anything. Each individual is responsible for all of their actions, and the totality of the effects of their actions, which can ripple endlessly through life. It's not really acceptable to say "I did it because I was following orders", because you DO have to consider what the effects of those orders are -- the total balance of good and evil being done thereby. I'm Buddhist. My general orientation is pacifist: I'm too old to serve in the military, but I have been a position several times of being asked to help develop weapons systems, and I've declined to participate. This unwillingness has cost me income opportunities. I see participating in warfare -- even indirectly -- as being inconsistent with my values and the best interests of the whole. Others disagree, of course, and they are entitled to their own views, and will have to make their own choices and live with the consequences. It's not my place to judge them.

You know there is a HUGE difference between someone who robs you then kills you verses the person out there fighting, risking their own life to save all your sorry asses! I am appalled at these comments and the out-right lack of respect for those who are over there defending our freedoms right now. Go ahead and DR me. What the hell ever.

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge. (CCC) Soldiers fighting in a just war are NOT guilty of murder. They are defending, and there's a HUGE difference in the two. Do some soldiers step over the line? Yes, a very small number who get lots of media attention. Does that make all soldiers murderers? No of course not. Is war ever the preferred answer to the world's problems? No. But do we sometimes have to go to war? yes.