• 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 said:
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Click to expand...

This one seems rather biased to begin with..."...massacres... unjust wars...". Nonetheless, yes we should. They are human, they make mistakes. And in case you did not know, they do not just go overseas and fight others on their own volition, they are given orders by the politicians YOU elect into office. And even more importantly they do it in order so you can safely criticize their actions from your computer while sipping on your coffee/tea or your apple juice.
 
Navy Pride said:
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.
Click to expand...

They absolutely have, and we should NOT support them if their actions are immoral.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Blaming the soldiers is not the right thing to do, but support implies you agree with the actions they do.
 
Navy Pride said:
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.
Click to expand...

So if the troops turned on the citizens even though we no longer have a draft you would be saying support the troops?
 
phattonez said:
Despite what they do?
Click to expand...
I would say no. Because if US troops started turning on the American people by trying to confiscate firearms,arresting and shooting American citizens then I am pretty sure the only troops who would be supported are those who refused such orders. Those who enacted out such orders would be condemned because of what they are doing and because they made a conscience effort to join and stay in the military.
 
jamesrage said:
So if the troops turned on the citizens even though we no longer have a draft you would be saying support the troops?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that American troops....our (and likewise their own) cousins, brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, aunts and uncles would just start shooting at other American civilians in the suburbs, cities etc. This "turning on us" is ridiculous. If a president were to ever be so bold as to command the destruction of the American people their would more than likely be a coup before that happens....unless were all zombies or infected with some sort of disease.
 
Lightning said:
This one seems rather biased to begin with..."...massacres... unjust wars...". Nonetheless, yes we should. They are human, they make mistakes. And in case you did not know, they do not just go overseas and fight others on their own volition, they are given orders by the politicians YOU elect into office. And even more importantly they do it in order so you can safely criticize their actions from your computer while sipping on your coffee/tea or your apple juice.
Click to expand...

You may not need to blame them, for everything, (somethings you do), but that doesn't mena you support them.
 
Dezaad said:
My system of evaluation is only relevant for the set of people I have indicated.

If I disagree with an unjust war, evaluate what I have done to prevent it. If I have not done everything I can, then be mad at myself, first. Then, evaluate whether my representative agreed with me. If s/he doesn't, then be mad at my representative. But at all times be grateful to the service people who made a promise to fight on my behalf, and fulfilled it.

If you agree with a war, then there is no potential for cognitive dissonance for you to resolve regarding whether to honor the troops, so my system of evaluation doesn't apply to you. If, furthermore, you are a service person, then I am not sure why you would be considering whether you should honor yourself or your fellow service people. But, yes, whether you agree with a particular war or not, you should. You made a promise and kept it with honor and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, regardless.

On the other hand, everyone can consider my evaluation, but when you already agree with a war, or are already a service person, I would think the conclusions would be more automatic. For example, I agreed that the war in Afghanistan was fully justified, so my support for the whole endeavor was completely automatic. I didn't really have to think about why a service person fighting in that war deserved my respect.
Click to expand...

That is what I am saying, the military is a volunteer force. So in essence, the vast majority of soldiers do support the war otherwise they would have not enlisted or re-enlisted during or leading up to the war.
 
Lightning said:
Do you honestly think that American troops....our (and likewise their own) cousins, brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, aunts and uncles would just start shooting at other American civilians in the suburbs, cities etc.
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't, that is why they make sure that the troops they sent to control a area are not from that area.

This "turning on us" is ridiculous. If a president were to ever be so bold as to command the destruction of the American people their would more than likely be a coup before that happens....unless were all zombies or infected with some sort of disease
Click to expand...
.

We all would like to think that.But the fact is a lot of people have been complacent sheep and there are troops who would remain because either they believe in the cause or because they care more about their retirement than their principal.
 
I haven't read through all the comments, but from reading countless postings over the years, I would say that the jiongists and anti-Americans are in somewhat equal measure. For every "America -- love it or leave it" type there is a "We're the real terrorist" idiot, both of whom seem locked in some reactive and dogmatic mindset that seems more rooted in personal psychology than anything rational.

Should we support the troops? Absolutely, when they are involved in wars whose ultimate aim is to prevent greater tragedy. Should we ALWAYS support them? No, not when individuals cross the line that separates warfare from murder, or when the reasons for the war, itself are rooted in something other than the prevention of greater tragedy.
 
Gardener said:
I haven't read through all the comments, but from reading countless postings over the years, I would say that the jiongists and anti-Americans are in somewhat equal measure. For every "America -- love it or leave it" type there is a "We're the real terrorist" idiot, both of whom seem locked in some reactive and dogmatic mindset that seems more rooted in personal psychology than anything rational.

Should we support the troops? Absolutely, when they are involved in wars whose ultimate aim is to prevent greater tragedy. Should we ALWAYS support them? No, not when individuals cross the line that separates warfare from murder, or when the reasons for the war, itself are rooted in something other than the prevention of greater tragedy.
Click to expand...

I understand not support a (single or those soldiers involved) soldier when they cross the line such as Calley did at Mai Lai. Most soldiers agree with you on this.

Then you concluded, “or when the reasons for the war, itself are rooted in something other than the prevention of greater tragedy.” The soldier has no say where he is sent to fight or if shall I say the war is viewed a just or unjust. That is left to congress and the president and to a certain extent the American populace. The American populace can also change their minds. They were behind Truman when he sent troops into Korea, but soon tired of that war and Eisenhower became presidency in 1952 with a simple slogan that he would go to Korea. Vietnam, again the vast majority of the American populace was behind LBJ when he sent the troops in only to tire by the length of it and the lies about it coming from the white house.

Quite a lot of the American populace think now that the war with Iraq over WMD’s was wrong, but in the beginning, they supported G.W. Bush when he went in. In all three of these congress gave their blessing which after all is our representatives. They represent us.

The bottom line regardless of how one views a war, being just or not. The soldier has no say, he swore an oath to protect and defend. When congress gives it approval and the president signs that approval, the soldier goes where the president orders him to go and fights where ever the president sends him.
 
When any question contains the word 'always', the answer should be 'No'.
 
Only if the troops, as some kind of conglomorated entity, were performing OUTSTANDING attrocities of moral reason. The invasion of Iraq is no where near the systematic mass purposeful killings of huge numbesr of individuals based on their race/religion.
 
As far as supporting the troops and their families I think we should always support them. We don't have to support the wars, but we should support or soldiers. The only instance when I wouldn't would be as others have said, if they are committing atrocities like genocide. Even so, such an issue would be with the leadership since they are the ones giving the orders.
 
Capster78 said:
That is what I am saying, the military is a volunteer force. So in essence, the vast majority of soldiers do support the war otherwise they would have not enlisted or re-enlisted during or leading up to the war.
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to what I am saying? Whether I agree or disagree with you has no bearing on whether I would honor the troops. I would honor them if they supported the action and I would honor them if they were against the action.
 
Well, I think this whole "Support the Troops" slogan is nothing more than a political tool.

I hear people say that line all the time. Whenever I would argue against war or what we were doing in other countries...people would tout that line and claim I was unpatriotic. That is a bunch of nonsense.

I talk to vets as much as possible. I think a new slogan should be started called "LISTEN TO THE TROOPS." More often than not...they hate the status quo, are not told why they are where they are, and are sick of seeing people die for a cause that they don't know.

If you really want to support them....LISTEN TO THEM!
 
jamesrage said:
Of course they wouldn't, that is why they make sure that the troops they sent to control a area are not from that area.
Click to expand...

That seems rather thought out... I'm a Libertarian and I'm not this paranoid lol no offense.

We all would like to think that.But the fact is a lot of people have been complacent sheep and there are troops who would remain because either they believe in the cause or because they care more about their retirement than their principal.
Click to expand...


I'm a Libertarian and I'm not this paranoid lol no offense.
 
RGacky3 said:
You may not need to blame them, for everything, (somethings you do), but that doesn't mena you support them.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't support the men who fight your right to say that we shouldn't support them? ...anybody can say what they want too, but if it was not for our military do you honestly believe we would be sitting here debating whether or not they deserve a pat on the back?
 
Lightning said:
That seems rather thought out... I'm a Libertarian and I'm not this paranoid lol no offense.
Click to expand...

Paranoia has nothing to do with.Its just a logical assumption. It is probably a whole lot easier to turn on people you don't know than it is to turn on people you do know.


I'm a Libertarian and I'm not this paranoid lol no offense.
Click to expand...

Paranoia has nothing to do with it. People are complacent sheep.They would rather watch American Idol,sports, honey Boo Boo or some other distraction than pay attention to anything their elected offcials do. These people make up the majority of voters. This is why we have a 90% disapproval rating in most of our elected officials but high incumbent reelection rate. Its because of these people why anti-Constitutionalists in office have been able to infringe on the constitution.
 
YES. You do not have to support the mission, or the CINC, but you should be supporting the men and women of our Armed Forces at all times.
 
We should always support the troops as a whole. When individual troops do the wrong thing they should get rightfully punished, but we should not demonize a whole group. As a Vet it hurts in a very deep way when people have called me name like baby killer by people that disagree with the wars. Also a friend of many Vietnam Vets I know the lack of support they got on their return really **** them up.

 
Medusa said:
l support war only if it is made for the purpose of defence
Click to expand...

Supporting the Troops and supporting the war are two different things.
 
phattonez said:
If it's an immoral act, then how are the individual acts that make up the larger act not also themselves immoral? Something immoral cannot come from something moral.
Click to expand...
I think you are incorrect. Each act can be judged stand alone.
This is a high level concept where we are of different. It's basic to logic.
 
Last edited:
Surtr said:
Enlist to be one, and see how you feel about the question.
Click to expand...

No, I don't very much feel like going to countries that are no threat, destabilizing it, and contribute to the death of innocents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom