• 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
OhIsee.Then said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you have an immoral act composed entirely of moral acts?
 
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...

No military action of the past few decades was used to defend my freedom. Actually, I'd go all the way back to the Revolutionary War, but that's just me.
 
Surtr said:
Because that's totally what I did in South Korea and New Mexico.
Click to expand...

No, if that's where you were then you weren't defending us either.
 
Capster78 said:
I am in the military, and I can tell you, that if you do not support the war you should not pander to us. I do not want your support if you do not believe in what I am doing. The military is a volunteer force and its members believe in the path we are taking, otherwise they would not volunteer to join the military. Conflicts just don't start overnight. There generally is a common knowledge as to who our potential enemies are. And it generally is fairly easy to see who we will probably be in the next conflict with. So if a Soldier, Airmen or Marine joins the military they are effectively saying they agree to support the governments geopolitical agenda.

So no, if you dont support the war, don't support the troops. I certainly would appreciate it more than being pondered to and smiled at while at the same time you walk the picket line protesting the money that goes into giving our troops what they need to fight the war.
Click to expand...

Thank you! This is exactly my point! It's no secret what the US military has been used for during these past decades.
 
Surtr said:
No, I was just making the way of life you clearly take for granted possible.
Click to expand...

What threat to my freedom did you personally or even partially prevent?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, actuallly that is not logical. It's the code which says that the ends justifies the means, and if an end requires immoral means, then the end is also immoral.
 
phattonez said:
No military action of the past few decades was used to defend my freedom. Actually, I'd go all the way back to the Revolutionary War, but that's just me.
Click to expand...



Personally, I would not include the Pearl Harbor attack in that description, but that's just me. Otherwise, I tend to agree.
 
phattonez said:
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Click to expand...

"The troops" do not commit massacres. Some of the troops might. I will always support "the troops", while conbdemning those troops who do things worthy of condemnation.
 
lizzie said:
Personally, I would not include the Pearl Harbor attack in that description, but that's just me. Otherwise, I tend to agree.
Click to expand...

The only reason I include it is because Roosevelt knew about it and tried to prompt a Japanese attack with an oil embargo.
 
phattonez said:
What threat to my freedom did you personally or even partially prevent?
Click to expand...

You libertarian tough guys crack me up. It's always "me me me, what did you do for me" with you people. Do even realize what happens to us if South Korea goes under? They're in the top 3 of our strongest economic allies in the world, and they welcome us with open arms. If North Korea destroys them, it's going to have a huge impact on you, since that's all you seem to care about.

Not to mention the millions of people who will die without our military presence there, but you don't care about that because it doesn't involve you.

In New Mexico we tested and maintained domestic defense systems to improve your security from any number of threats you probably don't even realize exist.
 
Surtr said:
You libertarian tough guys crack me up. It's always "me me me, what did you do for me" with you people. Do even realize what happens to us if South Korea goes under? They're in the top 3 of our strongest economic allies in the world, and they welcome us with open arms. If North Korea destroys them, it's going to have a huge impact on you, since that's all you seem to care about.

Not to mention the millions of people who will die without our military presence there, but you don't care about that because it doesn't involve you.
Click to expand...

1. Is North Korea the threat that you say it is? Their economy is a mess.
2. Does South Korea have apparently no military capability?
3. Do you think US involvement wouldn't also increase civilian casualties?
4. It's not our business to police the world.

In New Mexico we tested and maintained domestic defense systems to improve your security from any number of threats you probably don't even realize exist.
Click to expand...

Because they don't exist.
 
phattonez said:
1. Is North Korea the threat that you say it is? Their economy is a mess.
Click to expand...
So is ours. Didn't stop our military, did it?

2. Does South Korea have apparently no military capability?
Click to expand...
Not in the strength required to repel reinforcements from China.

3. Do you think US involvement wouldn't also increase civilian casualties?
Click to expand...
Not being there means South Koreans are mass murdered, and imprisoned in places like Haengyong.

4. It's not our business to police the world.
Click to expand...
It is our responsibility to help a friend in need.

Because they don't exist.
Click to expand...
Of course they do.
 
Surtr said:
So is ours. Didn't stop our military, did it?
Click to expand...

Don't even try to compare a depressed US economy to a Communist economy.

Not in the strength required to repel reinforcements from China.
Click to expand...

What does China have to gain from getting involved?

Not being there means South Koreans are mass murdered, and imprisoned in places like Haengyong.
Click to expand...

Our being there means they get bombed to death.

It is our responsibility to help a friend in need.
Click to expand...

Funny how those friends get selected.

Of course they do.
Click to expand...

Other than for blowback, what countries are intending to do anything against the US?
 
phattonez said:
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Click to expand...
Depends on the intent. If a soldier genuinely believes that what they are doing is right and they don't endanger innocent people out of recklessness or malice, then yes, we should support them even if they participate in wars that we consider unjust. If a solider endangers innocent people out of recklessness or malice, I would say "supporting" them depends on the context. I don't think we should support this latter group by treating them as heroes, but I do think we should support them by getting them help.
 
phattonez said:
Don't even try to compare a depressed US economy to a Communist economy.
Click to expand...
Their economy means jack ****. They have the numbers and the weaponry to carry out a full invasion courtesy of their friends and allies. You think we're the only nation that bankrolls proxies, coups, and conquest?

What does China have to gain from getting involved?
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be a serious question? China is the ally of the DPRK for one. For them personally, it would make us hurt in a way that we probably won't recover from, and they get that closer to dominating the global economy. They want the yen to be stronger than the dollar, and our loss of South Korea would greatly improve their odds of achieving that goal.


Our being there means they get bombed to death.
Click to expand...
You silly rascal.


Funny how those friends get selected.
Click to expand...
Not really, it's caused by a very complex amount of issues, and the fact that South Korea has stood by us since we repelled Kim Il Sung and Chairman Mao.


Other than for blowback, what countries are intending to do anything against the US?
Click to expand...
That's cute. I'm going to start calling you guys the modern quislings. It's surprisingly more spineless than the original quislings, in that you agree with the enemy, even when there is no perceived danger to you. But where will that get you, should this "blowback" annihilate our economy, deprive us of needed supplies and resources, cripple our infrastructure, and begin to to take over our land, our lives, and our culture, until who we are as a people is completely erased? You think they'll welcome you with open arms? No. If you're lucky, they'll just put a bullet in your head and toss you into a pit.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Depends on the intent. If a soldier genuinely believes that what they are doing is right and they don't endanger innocent people out of recklessness or malice, then yes, we should support them even if they participate in wars that we consider unjust.
Click to expand...

Then those who engage in honor killings? That's okay?

If a solider endangers innocent people out of recklessness or malice, I would say "supporting" them depends on the context. I don't think we should support this latter group by treating them as heroes, but I do think we should support them by getting them help.
Click to expand...

And not charging them with a crime?
 
Surtr said:
Their economy means jack ****. They have the numbers and the weaponry to carry out a full invasion courtesy of their friends and allies. You think we're the only nation that bankrolls proxies, coups, and conquest?
Click to expand...

That's the same thing that they said about the Soviet Union. There was no chance that they would be able to do anything.

Is this supposed to be a serious question? China is the ally of the DPRK for one. For them personally, it would make us hurt in a way that we probably won't recover from, and they get that closer to dominating the global economy. They want the yen to be stronger than the dollar, and our loss of South Korea would greatly improve their odds of achieving that goal.
Click to expand...

The outrage against China for such an act would probably mitigate any gains.

You silly rascal.
Click to expand...

That's how the government tried to save Vietnam.

Not really, it's caused by a very complex amount of issues, and the fact that South Korea has stood by us since we repelled Kim Il Sung and Chairman Mao.
Click to expand...

Great, it's still not our problem.

That's cute. I'm going to start calling you guys the modern quislings. It's surprisingly more spineless than the original quislings, in that you agree with the enemy, even when there is no perceived danger to you. But where will that get you, should this "blowback" annihilate our economy, deprive us of needed supplies and resources, cripple our infrastructure, and begin to to take over our land, our lives, and our culture, until who we are as a people is completely erased? You think they'll welcome you with open arms? No. If you're lucky, they'll just put a bullet in your head and toss you into a pit.
Click to expand...

Again, who is going to be able to invade the US? Who would even try?
 
phattonez said:
Then those who engage in honor killings? That's okay?
Click to expand...
Honor killings are reckless and based in malice, so no, that's not okay. But I thought we were talking about the US military. Are honor killings a thing in the military?

And not charging them with a crime?
Click to expand...
If they commit a crime, then they should be charged with that crime.
 
phattonez said:
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Click to expand...

Soldiers don't declare the wars the civilian branch of government does. If you have an issue with a war the US is fighting then make a change through the balance box. So no...if you think the war is unjust I don't think you should blame the troops.

Now committing a massacre is a different thing.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Honor killings are reckless and based in malice, so no, that's not okay. But I thought we were talking about the US military. Are honor killings a thing in the military?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that killing is killing, whether or not the murderer thinks it is justified.

If they commit a crime, then they should be charged with that crime.
Click to expand...

The killing of innocents is a crime.
 
iliveonramen said:
Soldiers don't declare the wars the civilian branch of government does. If you have an issue with a war the US is fighting then make a change through the balance box. So no...if you think the war is unjust I don't think you should blame the troops.

Now committing a massacre is a different thing.
Click to expand...

So because the leaders want to do something unjust, we should only blame those and not those who actually prosecute the unjust action?
 
phattonez said:
I'm just saying that killing is killing, whether or not the murderer thinks it is justified.
Click to expand...
Right, so if a man beats his wife and his wife kills him while he's doing it, do you have the same perspective?

The killing of innocents is a crime.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom