Is it morally wrong to not support the troops?

Post Reply New Topic

Raptor - Yes. That would be ideal.

You ask an inherently vague question.

In the Vietnam war, we committed atrocities (and only worse since), but the protest against the war itself is why people were so opposed to returning servicemen. The disdain over why we were really over there spilled over and affected those who had little choice unless they wanted to risk prison for not doing as ordered.

The backlash of what was done towards the veterans of the Vietnam war is what I call "jingoistic pride" in our troops. We have an all-volunteer military. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan on very shaky grounds at best (with all the ulterior motives for war, you can't say it's a morally just fight). Not one person serving is being "forced" to do so. They knew the risk of deployment when the wars began, and anyone joining today knows they can expect to spend a tour or more over in those theaters.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being grateful to those who serve for having made the sacrifice, and I certainly don't want to treat lightly their sacrifice, but at the same time there is a litany of programs and benefits for "veterans" that most don't even know exist. Some of them are fairly repugnant because they are benefits paid for by taxpayers that are granted solely on veteran status with no regard to if someone had incurred a relevant sacrifice.

Example: Veteran comes home with significant physical or mental disability because of injuries suffered while serving his country. Certainly we want to help that person have as "normal" a life as possible because of the price he paid. Now compare that to someone who comes home bodily and mentally intact and there's a program offering prospective employers $5,000 to hire him over non-veteran applicants. As a veteran has a positive disposition to being hired in most any job he or she applies for, for the government to "bribe" employers to hire the veteran over an otherwise qualified applicant just seems wrong to me.

I don't think that regarding military service as just a job and not allowing emotion to unduly sway the decision on if someone gets hired or not or promoted or not is in any way being unpatriotic or immoral. A former Marine might make a good cop, but a lot of smart Marines would admit that the training the USMC gives IS NOT fit for law enforcement personnel. Police officers are public servants. Marines are fighting machines. The mindset programmed in must be undone enough so that you get the positive traits and not the heavy-handed traits. In spite of this, many agencies go gaga over hiring veterans over other qualified candidates because they see it as doing right by the veteran.

I take exception with this because the military DOES NOT have to take all who want to serve. Likewise, the military can reject anyone they deem unfit for its purposes. The option of military service as a path to having all these perks and options DOES NOT exist for everyone, and those who work hard to build a life via alternative means should not find themselves considered less of a candidate because they lack military service.

In my life, I've made choices. Some good, many bad. Time and time again, people (and life itself) tells me I must own the results of my choices, good or bad, and nobody owes me nothing. However, I look at military veterans, and all I hear is that society OWES them for their sacrifice. On some level, I can agree, but these men and women CHOSE to serve. They were not forced to. They knew the risks, some of them got burned, and society takes the view that they should be cared for, but I know the risks, I make a choice and get burned, and I'm expected to suck it up? I can't make sense of such a glaringly obvious contradiction.

I would say that I do support the troops with the sentiment that we should BRING THEM HOME.

I agree. Unnecessary wars and unnecessary commitments are no way to treat our bravest and best.

Turning our best warriors into cannon fodder is not the right thing to do.

ruveyn

Absolutely. Soldiers should not be trained to kill. But to be problem solvers. It's not just a case of how we treat the soldiers, but the innocents that are needlessly killed in the grabbing of resources. Coz that's all that war is built upon now. And as things get worse and worse, the "bravest and best" are not gonna be revered as much anymore coz they're gonna be turned on us in order to stop us from rioting coz the economy is crashing.

Since many of the people in the armed forces are volunteers, they are responsible to themselves for joining in the efforts to which they have been assigned. I cannot determine what each volunteer intended when volunteering. I strongly disagree with the policies which put these people in harm's way and insofar as I have been able to gauge results the general harm to the people in the area and to the unsuspecting volunteers who chose to permit themselves to be used for what seems to me to be brutal and meaningless causes has been tremendous and unfortunate and useless. I am sorry for the people on all sides who have suffered and still are suffering.
If the troops are brought back many of the awful things should stop happening. The people who return then lose the opportunity to earn an education for which they enlisted. To support the troops is to support some way they can be re-incorporated into society to give them decent lives.

The purpose of the military is not to be an armed version of the Peace Corps.
It needs killers not social workers.

He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. - A.E.

Yea, of course, coz violence brings humanity together for a common goal of taking care of everyone.

How is any of that relevent?

Nobody said the german and japanese people are evil. The german and japanese nations were ruled by evil regimes that sought to enslave the world. They attacked the rest of the world. And the world had to defend itsself. How do you defend yourself against agression by using pacifism? What do you do when a burgler breaks into your house? Call the cops ( who are authorized to use force), or perhaps use force yourself, or do you use pacifism (whatever that might be- non force)?

Where did you get the idea that people DIDNT use pacifism before the war?
That pretty much what they did do.- ie practiced appeasement, had disarmament treaties and so forth. Fat lot of good it did.

Violence keeps nasty strangers out of your country.

ruveyn

And puts nasty citizens on edge.

Learn some history...........

tell us some history. which U.S. War made us safer?
I offer up the pacific theater in WWII up as common ground to show I am a pragmatic not ideological pacifist.
so list them up.
and then we can put up the dumb wars, the wars of aggression, the wars for U.S. business and pointless cluster f***s.
weigh them against each other and see who wins.

I actually started to do that but stopped. What do I care what you believe and why should I lower myself to your level?
What kind of debate could I have about this with someone who only sees his country's servicemen (past, present, and future) as mercenaries, fools, and murderers?
I don't want to even try to guess at what your idea of freedom is.

So, argument from xenophobia?

But how well is that working for you guys? Are you really short on the amount of nasty citizens and foreigners?