• 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
No. The bombing is immoral. Regardless of your goal, the act is not changed. It may be necessary in order to accomplish what you intend, but to say it's moral is not logical.

That is incorrect. Given that the good you seek to do can be greater than the unwanted evil you accomplish, the act itself remains moral.

As an extreme example to demonstrate the rule, if a terrorist utilizes 10 human shields to protect a nuclear bomb in New York City, it is better to risk (or even take) the lives of those 10 human shields than it is to allow the bomb to detonate.
 
It's willfull ignorance at best and dishonestly at worst.

funny you should say that given that this:

Well, you also forgot to mention they were also trained by the CIA on how to fight a more powerful and well equipped army. They were given the tactics they used on us by the CIA.

and this:

Without France's Naval power, we would have been destroyed.


Are both untrue.
 
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.



That video was cheezy as hell. I liked it. :)
 
This is a hell of a situation...but what to do ?
Life must be a lot more than a "bummer".
Are opportunities in short supply ?
Is the future bleak ?
Whose responsibly is ones happiness ?? (it cannot all be on the one man)...IMO.
Our government also has its job.

I understand the government has it's job...it's job is to protect us...but to engage troops in every Middle Eastern country every time they have a spat..is a war we cannot win!

How can you fight people who are not afraid to die..and indeed embrace an ''heroic'' death?

The whole situation reminds me of that fairground game..where you get a little hammer and you have to hit things that come out of little holes as fast as you can...as soon as you've hit one..another pops out of another hole!!
 
No. Again acts are separable things. Attempting the return Vietnam to the French was immoral. Rescuing Vietnamese boat people was moral.

Forcing kids to go there and kill "the enemy". Is that moral?
 
Please define "unjust". Is it against international law? US law? A US soldier is required to by law to fight the wars declared by the US government.

Massacres are a different matter. The US has signed on and accept international law regarding the treatment of civililians and POW's. So a soldier told to shoot a POW or massacre a village is a completely different subject than answering his countries call to war.

Edit: Honestly if the soldier should break US law and not fight in a war than any civilians paying taxes to fund a war are equally at fault!

Paying taxes and shooting a gun are completely different acts, don't you think? Especially considering the fact that taxpayers are in no way advocating for the military, whereas those who are in the military willfully join with implicit agreement of US foreign policy.
 
I don't understand your reply to my post. I posted: Again acts are separable things.Please explain.

Because troops weren't sent there to save boat people. They were sent there to kill.
 
Paying taxes and shooting a gun are completely different acts, don't you think?

I'm not sure about that. A lot of times with no money shooting doesn't take place or at least at a much lower level. I think Henry David Thoreau was correct in not paying taxes as a form of protest to the Mexican-American War.

Especially considering the fact that taxpayers are in no way advocating for the military, whereas those who are in the military willfully join with implicit agreement of US foreign policy.
Sure...they don't advocate for it...they just vote in power people that use it and continue to fund it at massive levels.

I also disagree with the implicit agreement of US foreign policy. I think in general a lot of people join for different reasons but I don't think the agreement of US foreign policy is any stronger with soldiers than it is with tax payers/voters that make the decisions that soldiers follow through with.
 
I'm not sure about that. A lot of times with no money shooting doesn't take place or at least at a much lower level. I think Henry David Thoreau was correct in not paying taxes as a form of protest to the Mexican-American War.

Then I'd go to jail. I don't like that option.

Sure...they don't advocate for it...they just vote in power people that use it and continue to fund it at massive levels.

I vote for no such person. In fact, I don't vote.

I also disagree with the implicit agreement of US foreign policy. I think in general a lot of people join for different reasons but I don't think the agreement of US foreign policy is any stronger with soldiers than it is with tax payers/voters that make the decisions that soldiers follow through with.

How do you figure? Taxpayers are coerced into paying for it. Soldiers VOLUNTEER to join the organization that is responsible for the actions.
 
Then I'd go to jail. I don't like that option.



I vote for no such person. In fact, I don't vote.



How do you figure? Taxpayers are coerced into paying for it. Soldiers VOLUNTEER to join the organization that is responsible for the actions.

Using a hypothetical example. Soldier A decides to join the military to pay for school. He would prefer serving in the military than working at some crappy job to save up money over a couple of years or taking out student loans. So you're saying that if he joins for that reason...he support US foreign policy. He should change his plan in protest of US foreign policy.

You on the other hand are absolved from any moral guilt since you decide to pay taxes or go to jail...even though it is funding those same wars you disagree with.

I believe both are pretty rational decisions and have nothing to do with support of US foreign policy but I think if somone joining the war for plenty of reasons is automatically supportive of US foreign policy with that decision I believe anybody that pays taxes does as well.
 
Using a hypothetical example. Soldier A decides to join the military to pay for school. He would prefer serving in the military than working at some crappy job to save up money over a couple of years or taking out student loans. So you're saying that if he joins for that reason...he support US foreign policy. He should change his plan in protest of US foreign policy.

Yes. If you join a company, you know what your job is. That's like saying (though it's not perfectly comparable) that a guy who starts dealing drugs to pay for school is blameless. In both cases, you know what you're getting into. It doesn't matter your rationale if the job you perform is immoral.

You on the other hand are absolved from any moral guilt since you decide to pay taxes or go to jail...even though it is funding those same wars you disagree with.

I wouldn't go to jail if I don't join the military. I go to jail if I don't pay taxes. Huge difference.

I believe both are pretty rational decisions and have nothing to do with support of US foreign policy but I think if somone joining the war for plenty of reasons is automatically supportive of US foreign policy with that decision I believe anybody that pays taxes does as well.

Are we going to say that the person who goes into a company that deals weapons to foreign dictators is absolved from the actions of that company?
 
Yes. If you join a company, you know what your job is. That's like saying (though it's not perfectly comparable) that a guy who starts dealing drugs to pay for school is blameless. In both cases, you know what you're getting into. It doesn't matter your rationale if the job you perform is immoral.
?

Public/civil service is different. The better comparison would be joining the police force even though you don't believe in the drug war or that drugs should be illegal. Your job is to enforce all laws that the government passes. That's what it's like when your job is to represent the will of the people. Society couldn't operate if police officers decided what laws to enforce or soldiers decided what wars to fight. That's kind of the heart of the issue. You can believe in serving in either capacity outside of what your representative government asks you to do. That's no immoral.

I wouldn't go to jail if I don't join the military. I go to jail if I don't pay taxes. Huge difference.
You could move to a country that doesn't support the war. You seem to really expect a lot from others and virtually nothing from yourself. So the soldier that has put in say 14 years and needs 6 years until retirement should drop out of the armed forces...anything less is immoral even if it meant losing everything he's worked 14 years for?

The guy that needs money for college...he better suck it up and just take student loans. How about the person that joins because they believe in things like the US armed forces and it's role to serve the will of the people. Hey buddy, change your goals in life.

Are we going to say that the person who goes into a company that deals weapons to foreign dictators is absolved from the actions of that company?

I just don't see private profit making ventures in the same light as something like civil service. The reasons for joining generally differ.
 
Public/civil service is different. The better comparison would be joining the police force even though you don't believe in the drug war or that drugs should be illegal. Your job is to enforce all laws that the government passes. That's what it's like when your job is to represent the will of the people. Society couldn't operate if police officers decided what laws to enforce or soldiers decided what wars to fight. That's kind of the heart of the issue. You can believe in serving in either capacity outside of what your representative government asks you to do. That's no immoral.

The police officer is also immoral for enforcing unjust laws.

You could move to a country that doesn't support the war. You seem to really expect a lot from others and virtually nothing from yourself. So the soldier that has put in say 14 years and needs 6 years until retirement should drop out of the armed forces...anything less is immoral even if it meant losing everything he's worked 14 years for?

If it requires killing innocents then it's immoral. And why should I have to move from my property? I own my property, do I not?

The guy that needs money for college...he better suck it up and just take student loans. How about the person that joins because they believe in things like the US armed forces and it's role to serve the will of the people. Hey buddy, change your goals in life.

But the aggression of the US military has been blatant for at least 50 years.

I just don't see private profit making ventures in the same light as something like civil service. The reasons for joining generally differ.

And in the end you know what you are working for when you join.
 
The police officer is also immoral for enforcing unjust laws.
.

The police officers job is to enforce laws. You really aren't operating a society based on laws when individuals determine what to enforce and what not to enforce.
If it requires killing innocents then it's immoral.
Yeah you really have to use some crazy logical twisting to view everyone on the other side of this conflict as innocents. Taliban? The Iraqi Republican Guard? The ruling Iraqi Regime? Insurgents that have targeted and killed (on purpose) more Iraqi civilians than American soldiers? I could agree pre-emptive war wrong but to claim everyone on the otherside of the conflict is innocent is just not true.
And why should I have to move from my property? I own my property, do I not?
Those property rights depend on having a police force to enforce those property roles and a US government that is soveriegn in order to protect those rights against other governments.


What happens when police forces decide to arbitrarily not obey laws...or when soldiers on a large scale decide not to do what they have been ordered to do? It causes chaos and massive problems. It's a breakdown on order. It causes a loss of legitimacy. A society cannot operate without the idea that police officers obey and enforce the law and soldiers do what they are ordered to by the chain of command.

But the aggression of the US military has been blatant for at least 50 years
I would disagree with you. Do you believe the USSR wasn't a threat? Do you think some of the regimes we went against weren't a threat? We're definately not batting a 100% but you've reduced 50 years of diplomacy into a simple caricture. Just like your simple caricture of the role of law enforcement or soldiers supposedly should operate.

And in the end you know what you are working for when you join.
Sure using some boiled down reduced to black and white carictures of what joining law enforcement or the military means.

Things are a bit more complicated. As mentioned your property rights depend on enforcement of US law. That enforcement can't be erratic....it can't be depedent on what laws individuals agree with or disagree with it has to be enough to sufficiently protect property rights and other rights all the time consistently.

US law is also depedent on US sovereignty....which is dependent on the our ability to defend ourselves and our military. That military can't exist when the chain of command is not respected. It can't effectively operate when there's a question on if your soldiers decide on the justness of what you're representative form of government decides to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom