Ok, so first off, my goal with this thread is to stimulate some dialogue. I’m not trying to offend anyone, and I’m trying to get all sides of this issue out there. Lets try to keep it civil. I make a few presopositions in this thread (the Iraq war is an unjust war) that you might not agree with. you’re welcome to tell us that, but since that’s not really the point of this thread, please don’t harp on it.
There are two sides to the support our troops issue.
If soldiers stopped fighting, there wouldn’t be any war. I realize that this doesn’t apply in every situation, and I support every peoples’ right to self determination (a whole other thread entirely), so occasionaly, there might be situations where soldiers are forced into fighting, and doing the right thing. I do not believe the Iraq war is one of these cases. The US is the agressor, and I believe that a lot of lives could be saved on both sides if soldiers refused to fight. So why support people who are choosing to be involved in this?
Of course, on the other side of the coin, I do believe that the US government unfairly targets the poor and “minorities” for military recruitment. While there is no draft, there really is an underground draft, where people are pressured into joining up, without knowing all the details or consequences of their actions. These are not bad people, and infact, they may be just as angry about the war as I am. So maybe I should support our troops?
I guess this is something that is just something I’d like to talk about. I like hearing new viewpoints. Feel free to correct any of my ideas. I really didn’t mean to offend anyone, but I’m sure that I have, so please, talk about that too (within reason).
By the way, I do believe that the only way to end the war in Iraq (or any war) is through the troops. (This is how the war in Vietnam was endded). As a civilian, I can organize and march and protest all I want, but until troops start rebeling against the fight, the war will go on.
I feel like whether or not you support the current war is irrelevant.
Our soldiers signed up to defend our country, and I respect that immensely.
It is the current administration that initiated the war, and thus blame should not be placed on our soldiers. Would you hate cops because they are enforcing a law you don’t agree with? Like I’ve heard before, they don’t make the laws, they just enforce them.
I support our soldiers in their effort and dedication to serving our country, regardless of whether or not I support any particular military action.
That being said, I most definitely do NOT support the Iraq war.
In my view, Soldiers are simply glorified murderer’s/thugs. They may have had good intentions, but same with many murderer’s/thugs. Unless drafted, I have little respect for those who fight to “protect their country”. There are very few exceptions, but for the most part I disagree with the soldiers’ decisions and feel that they deserve no support.
If the invading country retreats, what is there really left to fight about? Yes, there will still be a little left to fight over between different factions, but they don’t have the problem of the invading country playing both sides and will likely figure out more peaceful arrangements quicker, because people naturally like peace over war.
What about the people who signed up after the war had started? Also, even if you had isgned up before, once things got to a point where you stopped agreeing with what’s going on, you could always organize against it from the inside (see original post). Beter to refuse an order and face the consequences of that, than to rebuke your concious and live with those consequences for the rest of your life.
This actually made me laugh. I won’t respond to this any more in this thread (make another if you like), but the question isn’t a “would I” but a “do I,” and the answer is an emphatic yes.
Read my second point in my original post, read more about what I talked about, and try to integrate that into your views. I certianly see where your comming from, but the whole point of this thread is that it’s not such a black and white issue.
Bruce, you are such a stand up guy, and I always appreciate your posts here.
You may see it as “unfair targeting” but the poor may see it as a way to earn a little money and eat decently while obtaining useful job skills. Is that really unfair?
So I can walk into your house and throw you out, and you’ll do nothing about it? I can live at your place and use all your stuff, and you won’t care? I can kick your butt up one side of the street and down the other and you won’t ever cry for help?
As a soldier during Desert Storm, I am deeply offended by your disregard for the freedoms you enjoy at the expense of other people’s lives. Soldiers do a job that most can’t or won’t. Because of them you are able to do what you want, when you want without having to worry about someone coming and taking everything you have, including your life. The next time your out riding around on your unicycle, think about those that have died to allow you to do that.
Yes, it is unfair. As a poor, independant, college student, I’m a target of those ads. It’s really tempting to sign up, because college tuition is outrageous. Many of my friends have signed up, or done ROTC programs.
I’m not saying that I know what people want better than they do. I’m saying that the government isn’t upfront with what the real costs of military service are, and what the real benifits may or may not be.
Look at the way veterans are treated by the US government. Look at the homeless rates, disabled, PTSD, hospitilization, other mental problems. Look up how many people who serve actually end up with all those awesome benefits you see on the TV commercials (hint, not many). The fact that instead of paying people to kill other people (directly or indirectly), the government could be paying them to do something usefull, or providing scholarships without any pricetag. I’ll leave it to Gilby to come up with an argument as to why cutting so much military spending would be helping the poor, even without the addition of new government benifits (I know those libertarians are crafty like that).
I sense a bias there. The question in this thread is whether one should support the troops who volunteer to participate in an unjust war, meaning one that was started for the wrong reasons, and therefore does not protect our freedoms, and likely actually harms them.
It depends on the war. WWII for example. The Allied troops were heroic people and they faught to defend freedom.
Our current wars, not so much. But let us not forget that the real murderers are the governments that employ them.
But I question why someone would sign up to be the army’s killing tool for an unjust war. Unless they gotted brainwashed. Which is pretty easy to do in your local high school…
For the large majority, soldiers do not get to volunteer for certain duties. They receive orders. Their volunteering comes by way of a decision to join our fighting forces and serve where needed.
Anyone who knows me knows that I opposed and continue to oppose this war. Anyone who knows me knows that my advice to any young person considering joining the military is, don’t. Anyone who knows me knows that the last thing I think anyone needs to be doing is learning to shoot a gun.
And I also don’t buy into the argument that it is soldiers who give us our freedoms. Peter Zenger and his kind gave us freedom of the press. Susan B. Anthony and her kind gave women the right to vote. Martin Luther King Jr and his kind gave us civil rights and universal enfranchisement. Samuel Gompers and his kind gave workers rights. And sadly the military was too often used to oppose these rights.
Nevertheless, like it or not, governments wage wars and soldiers go off to fight, die, kill, and when fortunate enough aid peaceably. I will gladly argue about individual soldiers, their motives, and the consequences of their actions. But on the whole, soldiers on active duty and those returning represent an opportunity for a government and for a people to stand behind the ideals of fairness and decency. It is the duty of the government that recruits men and women to serve to then provide adequate support in the field and to provide adequate benefits upon return. You can argue all you want about the cost, but once the expenditure to execute the war is made the additional cost of properly equipped troops and fairly treated returning ones is not optional.
It is in everyone’s interest to do whatever is possible to make our soldier’s service the least unpleasant it can be and to make their return as welcoming as possible. We are talking about actual lives, families, and communities. This is not abstract.
I support the men and women serving in the military because they are human beings, because I am outraged and frightened by how their government is treating them, and because it is in their and my best interest to do so.
Partly… but they, like every other public servant, have taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. If they receive orders contrary to that, they have the duty to reject those orders. It takes a brave soldier to actually stand up for that, but this is the home of the brave, is it not?
Soldiers do not have the option or duty of rejecting orders, thus the word “order.” They need to make the decision to take the oath and all that goes with it prior to signing on the dotted line.
But in reality, wouldn’t you value the tradition of civilian leadership holding power over the military as being more important than encouraging a supremely armed and organized segment of the population to act independently of those controls? That would also be a constitutional implement, the military is under the supreme command of the republic.
Edit: Also to Nick
Asking soldiers to act independently, with direct action for any outcome, is aligning political force with physical force. Historically, democracies don’t fare well under those conditions.
