• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We Always Support the Troops?

Should We Always Support the Troops


  • Total voters
    51

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
 
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.

Massacres are another matter... but then again one must understand the combat environment to realize that these things are not always as cut-and-dried as the media presents them. The "fog of war" often makes it hard to distinguish and protect civilians; doubly so when the enemy wears no uniform and deliberately hides among the civilian populace.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
We must support the troop, but mission is something else. I didn't support the mission in Iraq, but I pulled for the troops all the way Home.
 
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.

So under the scenario that troops are used against citizens, we should still support them and only hold the politicians accountable?

In other words, troops can judge the morality of their actions. If they are doing something immoral, I don't buy the argument that they are unaccountable because someone else told them to do it.
 
So under the scenario that troops are used against citizens, we should still support them and only hold the politicians accountable?

In other words, troops can judge the morality of their actions. If they are doing something immoral, I don't buy the argument that they are unaccountable because someone else told them to do it.



I concede that you have a point. Certainly "I was just obeying orders" was not considered an acceptible excuse for the Death Camp guards at the Nuremberg trials.

I was going off the term you used, "unjust war". Thing is, this term has been used and abused a lot over the past 40 years, and while there is a specific an enumerated definition it isn't one everyone necessarily agrees on.

Lots of people have called Iraq and/or Afganistan "unjust wars". Shall we let the troops themselves decide before every deployment whether a conflict is just or not, and decline to participate if they think the latter? How would you guard against those who might say they think the war unjust, when they are really motivated by a desire not to be deployed to a combat zone?

It gets complicated.

When the troops are obeying orders and performing their function WITHIN REASON, I tend to say "support them" even if you have disagreement with the current gov't policy on whatever conflict we're talking about. If it gets UNREASONABLE, like asking American soldiers to violate Posse Commitatus and fire on American civilians, we've moved to a very different level of argument here.
 
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.

Massacres are another matter... but then again one must understand the combat environment to realize that these things are not always as cut-and-dried as the media presents them. The "fog of war" often makes it hard to distinguish and protect civilians; doubly so when the enemy wears no uniform and deliberately hides among the civilian populace.


I believe this is one of the few instances when I have disagreed with you Goshin. Soldiers have the choice to fight and even join the military when motives are fuzzy or questionable. They may not like the consequences of that choice but that choice is there. Blindly following orders or even questioning the orders but choosing to follow those orders is still a choice of the individual and I do not give them a pass just for being patriotic. They can of course make whatever decision they feel is right but that does not mean I will support them in it. Myself I believe every major military campaign we have been in the last 60 has not been about protecting our nation but instead was politically driven by greed or lust for power. These I cannot support.
 
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.

No Massacures? Are you sure? I look forward to a good massacure every now and again.
 
I concede that you have a point. Certainly "I was just obeying orders" was not considered an acceptible excuse for the Death Camp guards at the Nuremberg trials.

I was going off the term you used, "unjust war". Thing is, this term has been used and abused a lot over the past 40 years, and while there is a specific an enumerated definition it isn't one everyone necessarily agrees on.

Very true, language has been abused for a long time.

Lots of people have called Iraq and/or Afganistan "unjust wars". Shall we let the troops themselves decide before every deployment whether a conflict is just or not, and decline to participate if they think the latter? How would you guard against those who might say they think the war unjust, when they are really motivated by a desire not to be deployed to a combat zone?

It gets complicated.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people don't want to go to a combat zone, for any reason, then they should not be forced to go.

When the troops are obeying orders and performing their function WITHIN REASON, I tend to say "support them" even if you have disagreement with the current gov't policy on whatever conflict we're talking about. If it gets UNREASONABLE, like asking American soldiers to violate Posse Commitatus and fire on American civilians, we've moved to a very different level of argument here.

And when troops are invading sovereign countries that have done nothing to us, especially their citizens, then that's something that should be decried.
 
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.

Massacres are another matter... but then again one must understand the combat environment to realize that these things are not always as cut-and-dried as the media presents them. The "fog of war" often makes it hard to distinguish and protect civilians; doubly so when the enemy wears no uniform and deliberately hides among the civilian populace.

That argument didn't work for the Germans when they slaughtered civilians. Why should it work for us?
 
No Massacures? Are you sure? I look forward to a good massacure every now and again.

PS Try using the edit feature.
 
I believe this is one of the few instances when I have disagreed with you Goshin. Soldiers have the choice to fight and even join the military when motives are fuzzy or questionable. They may not like the consequences of that choice but that choice is there. Blindly following orders or even questioning the orders but choosing to follow those orders is still a choice of the individual and I do not give them a pass just for being patriotic. They can of course make whatever decision they feel is right but that does not mean I will support them in it. Myself I believe every major military campaign we have been in the last 60 has not been about protecting our nation but instead was politically driven by greed or lust for power. These I cannot support.



Can you accept that many (most?) of the soldiers who have served in those wars may disagree with your assessment of their status (just/unjust), and accept that IN THEIR VIEW they served their country honorably?

While I don't want to stir the pot overmuch here, what I'm kind of asking is whether you feel compelled to disrespect the individual soldiers who fought in those wars because you feel those wars were unjust, or do you respect them for their service in wars they may have believed were justified even if you disagree?

What I'm talking about here is respect for the individual GI you encounter in everyday life, even if he is an Iraq or Vietnam vet.
 
We, as Americans, learned a hard lesson after the Vietnam War. Castigating the soldiers for the decisions of the government did nothing for improving the "peace movement" at that time. I see no reason to believe that it would be any different now.

Individual actions by a few misguided military personel is not sufficient IMO to demonize all.
 
l support war only if it is made for the purpose of defence
 
Can you accept that many (most?) of the soldiers who have served in those wars may disagree with your assessment of their status (just/unjust), and accept that IN THEIR VIEW they served their country honorably?

While I don't want to stir the pot overmuch here, what I'm kind of asking is whether you feel compelled to disrespect the individual soldiers who fought in those wars because you feel those wars were unjust, or do you respect them for their service in wars they may have believed were justified even if you disagree?

What I'm talking about here is respect for the individual GI you encounter in everyday life, even if he is an Iraq or Vietnam vet.

You may feel differently, but I don't respect their service because they chose to serve in unjust wars. A maybe have more sympathy for those who were drafted into Vietnam, but even then there is always CO status.
 
Very true, language has been abused for a long time.



It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people don't want to go to a combat zone, for any reason, then they should not be forced to go.


So you support allowing individual soldiers to choose whether to fight or not when their country has declared war?

Have you thought about what kind of discipline problems that could create? What the conseqences could be? Many WW2 vets didn't particularly want to be there you know...




And when troops are invading sovereign countries that have done nothing to us, especially their citizens, then that's something that should be decried.


Yes, but do you decry the government policy choice, or do you attach blame and shame to the individual soldier and disparage them personally? Me, I don't think you should.
 
So you support allowing individual soldiers to choose whether to fight or not when their country has declared war?

Have you thought about what kind of discipline problems that could create? What the conseqences could be? Many WW2 vets didn't particularly want to be there you know...

Many rushed to sign up before they were even drafted. And I'm fine with the consequences. Soldiers are not slaves.

Yes, but do you decry the government policy choice, or do you attach blame and shame to the individual soldier and disparage them personally? Me, I don't think you should.

Ultimately it is the troops who carry out the actions.
 
You may feel differently, but I don't respect their service because they chose to serve in unjust wars. A maybe have more sympathy for those who were drafted into Vietnam, but even then there is always CO status.


Um, yeah, that viewpoint bothers me.

The plain fact is we (we collectively, our gov't) don't let individual soldiers decide they will fight THIS war but not THAT war. Doesn't work that way. You enlist, you obey orders, you deploy where and when you're told to do so as long as those orders are LAWFUL.

Being ordered to serve in Iraq is a lawful order. Whether the Iraq war itself was just or unjust is another question and beyond the scope of individual soldier discretion, legally.

This is why I don't see holding the individual soldier in disrespect because you don't like the war he fought in.... once he signed on the dotted line he was no longer given any legal options to refuse legal deployment orders.

So I'm guessing you disrespect EVERY person who volunteered for military service since WW2? Since they were, in effect, agreeing to obey all lawful orders and go fight where they were TOLD to fight, unless given illegal orders like firing on American civilians in CONUS or something.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear you feel that way, assuming I've correctly understood you.
 
Many rushed to sign up before they were even drafted. And I'm fine with the consequences. Soldiers are not slaves.



Ultimately it is the troops who carry out the actions.


Soldiers are not given the option to decide which wars they will fight in, legally. Therefore holding them accountable for being deployed to Iraq is to hold them accountable for something they had no legal recourse to affect.
 
You may feel differently, but I don't respect their service because they chose to serve in unjust wars. A maybe have more sympathy for those who were drafted into Vietnam, but even then there is always CO status.

Alright, I have reading this string and have to jump in on this one, because I'm honestly shocked at your very narrow view here. There are a few things you don't seem to be taking into account. First of all, when we went into Iraq, it was based on completely manipulated information, and a government that lied, bold faced to the country. Blaming an 18 year old kid, who thought he was doing is duty as an American, because his President told him that's what he was doing, is just idiotic. Have you ever tried to convince a teenage that something they believe is wrong? Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible. You are looking at this subject through a HUGELY narrow lens.

Secondly, you also don't account for the manipulation of the recruiting process. There is a reason that the people signing up to join the military are 18 year old kids, who think they are going to see some of the world, help some people, and get college paid for. That is what a good recruiter gets kids to believe, and they buy it completely. That's also the reason very few service members stay in after their contract is up. Because they figure out through the course of their service, that they were lied to and manipulated.

My boyfriend became a Marine because he had been convinced that doing so, was his way of contributing to his country, and thought he would helping to liberate the people of Iraq. He realized after his first tour, that was entirely untrue, but there was nothing he could do about. He was contractually obligated to serve his time, follow orders and protect his friends as much as he could. If he didn't, he'd have been court marshaled and punished for it. Most likely spending well beyond their contractual service in the brig.

The subject is much more complicated then you make it seem. Acting like it's always been common knowledge that Iraq was an unjust war is ignoring the facts of history. We should be pissed off that our government manipulated the teenagers of this country into dying for a war that was waged based on a lie, and it cost millions of people their lives. Personally, I take to defending service members, because they join the military with the intention of defending their country, regardless of how miss guided that belief turned out to be and I condemn my government for wasting so many young lives of false pretenses.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

Yes, we should always support the individual troops, they signed up to protect our country with their life, their limbs, and their minds on the line. They should be treated with honor, and taken care of.

We must be critical of military command however, and we must be critical of the people who send them to war, and we must protest unjust wars. Though we must never blame the soldiers for fighting in unjust wars, because that was not their choice. In those cases, we must support them even more.
 
Yes, we should always support the individual troops, they signed up to protect our country with their life, their limbs, and their minds on the line. They should be treated with honor, and taken care of.

We must be critical of military command however, and we must be critical of the people who send them to war, and we must protest unjust wars. Though we must never blame the soldiers for fighting in unjust wars, because that was not their choice. In those cases, we must support them even more.

l agree with your post but they may be held responsible for some crimes (rape )commited by many of them as in the example of bosnia.
 
I think it's pretty lame when the flight attendants get on the intercom and ask everyone to applaud our troops ever time I fly around the south, just because someone in uniform happens to be sitting on the plane.

We might as well do a round of applause for police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, etc.

I think the troops get undue special attention.

That said, you can't blame the troops for unjust wars - blame the politicians, not the soldiers. Likewise, you can't blame the troops for annoying flight attendants.

The troops are just doing their jobs. It's the people around them who are annoying douchebags.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom