What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

So, at this point I'm not even sure what to take from this. You seem to think that killing in a just war is moral, but immoral if the war is unjust. Ok. Then you make opposing statements about whether Bush's wars are just.

Killing is moral in a just war. Is Bush's oil war just and if not, are the soldiers defending their units from the "enemy" moral or immoral.

Your questions was this:

"So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!?"

My answer was this:

"The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was."

Killing in self defense is always justifiable, regardless of whether you're in a war or not, or whether it's a just war or not.

Sorry if it can get confusing on here. I hope that clears it up.

You really need to quit conflating self defense and defense. They are very much two different things.

Ok. During the invasion of Iraq, a war we've both agreed is unjust, a squad of soldiers are given a mission, and all the orders are lawful. The mission requires they kill enemy soldiers, not in defense of anything, but as part of the objective of the mission. They've been given lawful orders and under the Unified Code of Military Justice could be court marshaled for refusing the orders, is it moral for them to carry out those orders, killing Iraqi soldiers to do so?