• 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
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?

Yes I accept that, I just do not always agree with them.


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.

If the solider feels he is doing the right thing for man and country I do not disrespect them in their choice even if I disagree. I just feel that perhaps they may be misguided or know something I do not. If however they feel that the cause is unjust or is uncertain but chose to follow orders anyway because they are just doing their job or they are afraid of personal consequences for not doing so then I have no respect for them. If you are willing to take a life I feel you better have a damn good justifiable reason other then following orders or doing your job, to me that is just a cop out. It all comes down to the person who does the killing and not those who ordered it.

My father was drafted for Vietnam but dodged it by getting married and impregnating his wife knowing that their was a good chance they would reconsider under those circumstances which they did. Now I am sure many people would consider that a cowardly act but you have to understand his reason. He felt that the US was under no threat from the Vietnamese and that it was largely a political battle which I personally agree with. He was not about to risk his life for the whims of bureaucrats. Now if the Vietnamese had invaded the US and posed a real threat to us I believe he would have served wholeheartedly. I share the same views and would refuse to participate in any conflict that I felt was for anything other then national defense and I am talking about a real legitimate threat such as those we faced in WWII and not preemptive strikes on a long shot of a half ass threat.
 
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.

Maybe they should be. Maybe someone who enlists during peacetime should be able to conscientiously object. They should have a recourse against being ordered into an unjust war.

I find the slogan about "supporting" our troops too vague to really comment on. Support takes many forms and means many different things to different people. Someone would have to explain exactly what they mean by supporting.

And I actually disagree that we can't blame soldiers for fighting an unjust war. If a civilian has the courage to face jail for refusing the draft, then a soldier ought to have the courage to face court martial for refusing to fight an unjust war. We certainly blame the Nazi soldiers who patrolled the concentration camps. We certainly blame the soldiers who participated in Nanking. We should blame soldiers who killed innocent children in Iraq, too. Or better yet, not put them in the position to do that in the first place.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

By whose opinion is an unjust war defined? Your opinion of what wars were just and which weren’t might be completely opposite of mine. Back in my day you had the draft, a soldier had no say as to where and when he would be stationed. Today it is all volunteer, still the same thing applies, a soldier has no say where he will be assigned. Massacres, again by whose definition. Mai Lai during the Vietnam War was a massacre by my standards and those responsible should have been punished. So too was the killing of 30,000 South Vietnamese Civilians by the NVA/VC after they captured Hue during Tet. In my opinion they too should have been punished, but they went home hero’s for their massacres.

Let me ask you this, do you think you could support the troops and be against the war they are involved in at the same time?
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

If they are in a war you deem unjust, well, your elected representatives sent them there. So perhaps you should be upset with the American body politic, not the folks who have volunteered to serve it.
 
Maybe they should be. Maybe someone who enlists during peacetime should be able to conscientiously object. They should have a recourse against being ordered into an unjust war.

Nope. You willingly give up certain decisions and rights when you join the military for the time proscribed. If you want to refuse military discipline, you go to jail.
 
If they are in a war you deem unjust, well, your elected representatives sent them there. So perhaps you should be upset with the American body politic, not the folks who have volunteered to serve it.

Right on the money. I couldn't have said it better myself and if I tried I would have had to write a novel.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

Supporting the troops does not necessarily mean supporting the war they are involved in, nor the policies that cause it.
 
Supporting the troops does not necessarily mean supporting the war they are involved in, nor the policies that cause it.

Yes, well, if I believed that 911 was an inside job, the illumanati and masons (and Jews, of course) rule the world and that the US govt is hiding alien info... then I'd have particular objections. It all depends on perspective.
 
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.

Obviously.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

there is no requirement to support the troops or not to....just weigh the facts , the context, and use your best judgement... try to be as fair and just as possible

for the fact spend over 24 years in uniform, i'm more apt to understand what troops go through... and more apt to support them through thick and thin ( within reason)
I'm more apt to be sympathetic to "war atrocities" (IMO, war is an atrocity, "war atrocity"a bit of a redundant phrase to me)... at least moreso than I am to peacetime crimes committed by troops anyways.
as far as "unjust wars" go.. troops are powerless in that regard.... they don't have the luxury of being able to discern whether a war is just or not, nor do we want them to.. that is the sole domain of civilian leadership.
 
Yes, well, if I believed that 911 was an inside job, the illumanati and masons (and Jews, of course) rule the world and that the US govt is hiding alien info... then I'd have particular objections. It all depends on perspective.

Three red herrings in one sentence. Remarkable. Good to know that the institution allows use of the Internet.
 
Maybe they should be. Maybe someone who enlists during peacetime should be able to conscientiously object. They should have a recourse against being ordered into an unjust war.

I find the slogan about "supporting" our troops too vague to really comment on. Support takes many forms and means many different things to different people. Someone would have to explain exactly what they mean by supporting.

And I actually disagree that we can't blame soldiers for fighting an unjust war. If a civilian has the courage to face jail for refusing the draft, then a soldier ought to have the courage to face court martial for refusing to fight an unjust war. We certainly blame the Nazi soldiers who patrolled the concentration camps. We certainly blame the soldiers who participated in Nanking. We should blame soldiers who killed innocent children in Iraq, too. Or better yet, not put them in the position to do that in the first place.

The military's job is to protect and defend the United States and they do this by killing people and breaking things. During peace time each and every soldier trains and hones his skill at killing people and breaking things. When one joins the military they are acknowledging that when and if war comes, they will do their job of defending, protecting, killing and breaking things.

I see you are back to the unjust war thing, but by whose definition? The presidents? Congress? Your history professor? You own? Mine? If we would go by the constitution, the president is suppose to ask for a declaration of war and congress is suppose to pass that declaration and then the president signs it before this nation goes to war. But do you know when the last time Congress declared war?

The one thing civilians do not realize is war is down right ugly. There is no such thing as a civilized war, a war fought by the Marquis of Queensbury rules if you will. The United States has tried to make war as civilized as possible and in the process probably has gotten a lot of her own soldiers killed instead of the enemy or some civilian close to the enemy. War is not something to be taken lightly, although I think quite a lot of our elected leaders do. But if we do go to war, we should go to war using everything in our arsenal with maximum force. The truth is the quicker a war comes to an end, the more lives will be saved in the long run.
 
If they are in a war you deem unjust, well, your elected representatives sent them there. So perhaps you should be upset with the American body politic, not the folks who have volunteered to serve it.


I have to disagree. Our elected officials may be the ones to declare war but it is the soldiers that carry out that war. It is not our politicians killing people because they were ordered to, it is the soldiers. So I hold our soldiers just as accountable for the wars they are involved in. They made a choice to fight in that war.
 
I see you are back to the unjust war thing, but by whose definition? The presidents? Congress? Your history professor? You own? Mine? If we would go by the constitution, the president is suppose to ask for a declaration of war and congress is suppose to pass that declaration and then the president signs it before this nation goes to war. But do you know when the last time Congress declared war?

This is my first post in this thread, so I'm not really back to anything. But I was suggesting that the soldier ought to have some discretion. We place such a high value on individual choices and beliefs in this country, perhaps asking a soldier to give that up completely is too much to ask.

The one thing civilians do not realize is war is down right ugly. There is no such thing as a civilized war, a war fought by the Marquis of Queensbury rules if you will. The United States has tried to make war as civilized as possible and in the process probably has gotten a lot of her own soldiers killed instead of the enemy or some civilian close to the enemy. War is not something to be taken lightly, although I think quite a lot of our elected leaders do. But if we do go to war, we should go to war using everything in our arsenal with maximum force. The truth is the quicker a war comes to an end, the more lives will be saved in the long run.

I think we do realize that. It's one of the main reasons we like to stay civilians. And I agree, war ought to be fought to destroy a dangerous enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, we don't fight them that way. We fight to occupy.

Nope. You willingly give up certain decisions and rights when you join the military for the time proscribed. If you want to refuse military discipline, you go to jail.

And maybe that's not how it ought to be. The idea that not fighting is something that ought to be punished comes from ancient times when basically anyone who wasn't royalty was little more than a slave. The life and liberty of a soldier was irrelevant. Only their ability to expand the personal power of their ruler mattered. Maybe it's time to rethink that tradition.
 
Anyone that supporrts troops blindly - no matter what they do - is little more then a trained minion for the government.

There are good soldiers and bad soldiers...just like there are good civilians and bad civilians.


Now, I assume a soldier (and a civilian) is a decent person until I have evidence to the contrary.

But if that evidence points to wrongdoings - then those involved will be judged negatively by me.


Sure, war drives/forces people to do what in civilian life are considered 'bad' things - that's part of the job.

But there are bad things and their are REALLY bad things.
 
This is my first post in this thread, so I'm not really back to anything. But I was suggesting that the soldier ought to have some discretion. We place such a high value on individual choices and beliefs in this country, perhaps asking a soldier to give that up completely is too much to ask.

I think we do realize that. It's one of the main reasons we like to stay civilians. And I agree, war ought to be fought to destroy a dangerous enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, we don't fight them that way. We fight to occupy.

And maybe that's not how it ought to be. The idea that not fighting is something that ought to be punished comes from ancient times when basically anyone who wasn't royalty was little more than a slave. The life and liberty of a soldier was irrelevant. Only their ability to expand the personal power of their ruler mattered. Maybe it's time to rethink that tradition.

As for your discretion be advised the military is a team, there is no I in team. A soldier is govern by the UCMJ and the Code of Conduct.

Fighting to occupy, I have to agree with, the biggest mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan in my opinion was this nation building crap and forcing democracy on them. We should fight a war to win, win it quickly and then go home. Again my opinion.

No, not for a soldier. As I stated, the military is a team, a very cohesive team. It is a team that strips individuality away. I was a Drill Sergeant once, what we did was first break down the recruits, we did this to get them away from their civilian thinking and then formed and molded them into soldiers. Into a unit where the term brothers in arms apply. To a soldier any war congress approves and the president sends them to is a justified war. A soldier can have it no other way or he wouldn't be performing his constitutional duties of protecting and defending the United States.
 
"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

JFK
 
And maybe that's not how it ought to be.

That is precisely how it ought to be. We have civilian control over the military in this country for good damn reason.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

Yes. If they are doing those things, look to the leaders who give those orders, not those following the orders. :(
 
Fighting to occupy, I have to agree with, the biggest mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan in my opinion was this nation building crap and forcing democracy on them. We should fight a war to win, win it quickly and then go home. Again my opinion.

Preach it!

No, not for a soldier. As I stated, the military is a team, a very cohesive team. It is a team that strips individuality away. I was a Drill Sergeant once, what we did was first break down the recruits, we did this to get them away from their civilian thinking and then formed and molded them into soldiers. Into a unit where the term brothers in arms apply. To a soldier any war congress approves and the president sends them to is a justified war. A soldier can have it no other way or he wouldn't be performing his constitutional duties of protecting and defending the United States.

That may be the way it is, but that might not be how it has to be. Especially with the increasing mechanization of warfare. I'm really just conjecturing. Ideally, better civilian oversight and the president and congress not being permitted to use the military for occupation or unjust attacks. Mainly, that duty falls to the populace to be better informed and more critical. The government will exercise its military might only as much as the people will allow them.

To return to one element from my original post here, what exactly does "supporting" the troops mean?
 
That is precisely how it ought to be. We have civilian control over the military in this country for good damn reason.



Exactly, because you can't have the military itself, or individual soldiers, deciding they WON'T fight this war, any more than you can have them deciding they WILL fight some other war that they were NOT told to fight!
 
To return to one element from my original post here, what exactly does "supporting" the troops mean?


I'd say at its most basic and minimal level: showing the respect due to someone who puts their life on the line for your country. Not treating them the way so many Vietnam vets were treated when they came home, being spit on and called "baby killers" and such.

I'd also add, not treating them as if they were "at fault" for fighting what YOU consider an "unjust war", since they do not legally have the right to pick and choose their wars.
 
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?

What kind of question is that? Of course we should always support "the troops." And we should be quick to bring those who cross the line to justice. Why would you include war crimes? Why would anyone in their right mind support people who commit war crimes?
 
Preach it!



That may be the way it is, but that might not be how it has to be. Especially with the increasing mechanization of warfare. I'm really just conjecturing. Ideally, better civilian oversight and the president and congress not being permitted to use the military for occupation or unjust attacks. Mainly, that duty falls to the populace to be better informed and more critical. The government will exercise its military might only as much as the people will allow them.

To return to one element from my original post here, what exactly does "supporting" the troops mean?

For a military man, he doesn't decide what is a just war or what isn't. You are correct, first it is up to congress and then the president to decide whether to use force or not. The populace can make its voice heard. The soldier must follow the orders and directives that come down the chain of command.

What does supporting the troops mean? That definition probably is left up to the individual. It doesn't mean treating soldiers like some of the U.S. population did after they returned from Vietnam. I can remember the hostile greetings some of these war veterans received at the hands of the anti-war crowd. During that time it seemed the soldier was to be blamed and not the elected leaders that sent them into harms way.

I think the bottom line is just treating military members with respect. You do not have to do anything for them, just don't shout "baby killer," or spit upon them and threat them like they were pariah. Most of the soldiers serving in Vietnam didn't want to be there in the first place. If one is against any particular war, complain, demonstrate, write letters to your congressman, senators and the president and to newspapers, but don't take it out on the soldier.
 
Back
Top Bottom