Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should We Be Grateful to the Troops

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:33:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should We Be Grateful to the Troops?
Part One

"They" say that we should have an attitude of gratitude. That's all well and good as a general philosophy of life, but what in fact should we the common people be appreciative about when it comes to the so-called "service" of members of the armed forces?

Let's critically look at current military events. The real mission of the military in Iraq has arguably been to secure the interests of the economic ruling class of the US as we rapidly approach that scary milestone known as peak oil production. Staking our claim to turf that can supply the oil needed to keep the Western economic machine chugging along a bit longer, and that can keep our economic elite in the catbird seat for the foreseeable future, such is the primary objective of the recent war and occupation. Of course there've also been enormous profits to be made by corporations practicing the shock doctrine, by contractors such as Bechtel and Halliburton. Nothing makes a country amenable to having its natural resources raped and its economy pillaged like being conquered militarily.

As for Afghanistan, securing that parcel of real estate for the valuable trans-Afghanistan pipeline is an obvious economic motivation for the commitment of the American business and political Establishment to the prolonged engagement of its troops in that theater of war. Yes, the US military does seem to get used by the economic elite as if its members are the elite's very own shock troops and enforcers.

This isn't really anything new of course. In the early 1900s American military personnel were repeatedly used to keep banana republics from claiming their dignity and sovereignty. They functioned like the private goon squad of the US companies that had business interests in Latin America. Whenever the US has resorted to military force or gone to war there've been crass economic motives lurking in the shadows if not out front and center. Even the Civil War was precipitated by economic factors, by the desire of the Southern states to escape the economic dominance of the industrialized North and the desire of the business and political Establishment of the North to maintain its politico-economic hegemony over the South. The Civil War was no noble crusade for the freedom and human rights of black people in bondage.

The moneyed ruling class always has its self-centered, class-centered reasons for taking the rest of us into war. World War 2, for example, was a righteous cause in the sense that it was fought to the end of defeating the Nazis who were truly evil foes. But once again, the ruling class of the Allies had their own ulterior motives. The ruling class of Britain and the US saw Hitler's Germany as a threat to their class interests, and of course when Nazi forces invaded Russia they became an immediate threat to the Soviet ruling elite. Take ole Winnie Churchill, who believed in the empire, in the right of the British elite to deny freedom to millions of people in India and Africa. He was certainly not gung ho for the freedom of the little guy, he was driven to protect the global status quo that the British business aristocracy had a vested interest in.

The American business aristocracy also realized that if Europe and its colonies fell under Nazi domination the world would not be such a lucrative place to do business in. This provided ample impetus for the US to participate in its second World War. Of course it took Pearl Harbor to get the public fired up for the fight, but Pearl Harbor was just a casus belli, the real stimulus for the US to do its part to save the world from Hitler was the economic stimulus, so to speak. Keeping the world safe for US business interests and stimulating the American economy out of the Great Depression, that's what really incentivized America's fat cats to become staunchly pro-war.

So then, 99.99999% of the time the military functions and exists solely to protect and serve the special interests of the favored few folks at the top of our socio-economic food chain. So why should the rest of us be grateful to our boys and girls in uniform for going forth to answer the call to war? As far as the real, realeconomik, realpolitik reasons why our warriors fight and die goes, it has nothing to do with serving the country as a whole or with any noble ideals. There's nothing whatsoever about the actual reasons that our G.I.s go into action that makes it something to admire or be grateful for.

What then of the reasons that military personnel may have in their minds and hearts that motivate them to risk their lives? Don't they believe that they're fighting for us, for their country, and for noble values such as democracy? Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have good intentions and shouldn't we be grateful for that? This sounds like "nice" thinking, and most people are inclined to be "nice" and go along with it, and with the conventional positive view of our "servicepeople".

But is it so nice to assume that most of the military's rank and file are gullible grunts who naively swallow all the cliché rhetoric about America's wars always being noble crusades for democracy? Isn't this kind of insulting to the intelligence of the guys and gals in the military? And doesn't viewing them as unsophisticated boy scouts who buy into the standard rationalizations of war contribute to making them precisely that, doesn't it contribute to duping them into fighting for the lies that the ruling class feeds them. If we rubber stamp the popular image of the troops as naïve Dudly Do-Rights don't we help instill that self-image in their minds, and make them more inclined to fight and die to protect us from threats and weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. Aren't we making ourselves a part of the societal con game that gets them sent home in body bags or to VA hospitals? Are we then really doing them a favor by handing them the naiveté defense for their participation in the elite's unjust wars?

Of course the reality is that a great many in the military today are not naïve at all. They went into the military for somewhat cynical economic reasons. For an income, a roof over their heads, and job training, all of which is harder to come by in the civilian job market and private sector these days. In other words, many have joined up for what they can get out of the military, not for what they can give back to their country. The military for many is like workfare in uniform with an occasional risk of getting shot at.

Then there's also the ego payoff that many young males get out of going into the military. Joining the military or a street gang is the last macho rite of passage for modern males. The psychological truth be told, many enlist because it's a way of going on an extended masculine ego trip and getting paid for it.

See the conclusion below.

http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should We Be Grateful to the Troops?
Part Two (Conclusion)

As for whether our macho men and women really naively believe the idealistic rhetoric they parrot about military service, surely a great many do not. Our young people today are notorious for being jaded and cynical before their time. The young people in the military are just a cross section of their demographic age group, they're no more naïve than the average American teen or twenty-something. The naiveté defense therefore doesn't even apply for a great number of them.

What of those members of Uncle Sam's military who do naively accept the excuses their leaders give them for dropping bombs on villages in distant lands and shooting other kids who never really did anything to their country? Well, being naïve and having good intentions is never a very strong defense for taking part in unjustified killing. We realize this when it comes to gang kids who've been raised in environments where a pervasive gangbanging culture indoctrinates naïve young minds with rubbish about defending one's neighborhood. When a gang member commits a homicide we don't say as a society "Oh yes, you naively believed that you were defending your hood when you killed, therefore you're not a murderer and can go home instead of to jail". Naiveté is no excuse, and we usually recognize this, but we make an unjustifiable exception for folks in the military!

What it comes down to is this, everyone who isn't mentally handicapped has the intellectual faculties and the moral intelligence to judge right from wrong, and most of the time we hold people, even those with psychiatric disorders, to account for this reason. People in the military have the mental ability to discern that the wars they're being ordered to take part in are morally criminal, and to apprehend that they're being used by their leaders as cannon fodder and enforcers. There's nothing innocent about their naiveté. And there's no ethically cogent reason why their naiveté should inspire feelings of gratitude in us.

So why should we be grateful to "our troops"? There's no good reason. We are anyway because we've been socio-culturally conditioned to be. We're conditioned to appreciate and admire uniformed personnel because this makes us more servilely respectful of authority at home, and more readily willing to send our children off to kill or be killed in foreign wars that really only profit the elite. We dearly need to come to terms with this cynical reality if we're ever going to reject the mind games that our leaders play with us to induce us to fight for their selfish objectives and interests. If we're ever to have any realistic hope of beating our swords into plowshares and making war no more we need to embrace the truth that will set us free from the patriotic head trips that delude us into killing our brothers and sisters to benefit the rich & powerful.

http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:53:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can't really be ar$ed to read all that, but I will reward you with my opinion regardless.

We should be grateful to the people that enlist, you should not really ask someone to do something that you would not do yourself. When we recruit into the armed forces that is exactly what we are doing. They are offering their lives to protect us.

Okay sure, they join for their own reasons. I am sure that people have enlisted feeling safe in the knowledge they wont have to fight, but ignoring all that I respect those who do have to muster the courage to enlist.

I am not grateful to them for their participation in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan that do nothing to make me safer and actually subject me to increase risk. But I save my bile for the officers (who should know better) and the Government (which does know better).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:14:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 6:33:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
Should We Be Grateful to the Troops?
Part One

"They" say that we should have an attitude of gratitude. That's all well and good as a general philosophy of life, but what in fact should we the common people be appreciative about when it comes to the so-called "service" of members of the armed forces?

Let's critically look at current military events. The real mission of the military in Iraq has arguably been to secure the interests of the economic ruling class of the US as we rapidly approach that scary milestone known as peak oil production. Staking our claim to turf that can supply the oil needed to keep the Western economic machine chugging along a bit longer, and that can keep our economic elite in the catbird seat for the foreseeable future, such is the primary objective of the recent war and occupation. Of course there've also been enormous profits to be made by corporations practicing the shock doctrine, by contractors such as Bechtel and Halliburton. Nothing makes a country amenable to having its natural resources raped and its economy pillaged like being conquered militarily.

As for Afghanistan, securing that parcel of real estate for the valuable trans-Afghanistan pipeline is an obvious economic motivation for the commitment of the American business and political Establishment to the prolonged engagement of its troops in that theater of war. Yes, the US military does seem to get used by the economic elite as if its members are the elite's very own shock troops and enforcers.

This isn't really anything new of course. In the early 1900s American military personnel were repeatedly used to keep banana republics from claiming their dignity and sovereignty. They functioned like the private goon squad of the US companies that had business interests in Latin America. Whenever the US has resorted to military force or gone to war there've been crass economic motives lurking in the shadows if not out front and center. Even the Civil War was precipitated by economic factors, by the desire of the Southern states to escape the economic dominance of the industrialized North and the desire of the business and political Establishment of the North to maintain its politico-economic hegemony over the South. The Civil War was no noble crusade for the freedom and human rights of black people in bondage.

The moneyed ruling class always has its self-centered, class-centered reasons for taking the rest of us into war. World War 2, for example, was a righteous cause in the sense that it was fought to the end of defeating the Nazis who were truly evil foes. But once again, the ruling class of the Allies had their own ulterior motives. The ruling class of Britain and the US saw Hitler's Germany as a threat to their class interests, and of course when Nazi forces invaded Russia they became an immediate threat to the Soviet ruling elite. Take ole Winnie Churchill, who believed in the empire, in the right of the British elite to deny freedom to millions of people in India and Africa. He was certainly not gung ho for the freedom of the little guy, he was driven to protect the global status quo that the British business aristocracy had a vested interest in.

The American business aristocracy also realized that if Europe and its colonies fell under Nazi domination the world would not be such a lucrative place to do business in. This provided ample impetus for the US to participate in its second World War. Of course it took Pearl Harbor to get the public fired up for the fight, but Pearl Harbor was just a casus belli, the real stimulus for the US to do its part to save the world from Hitler was the economic stimulus, so to speak. Keeping the world safe for US business interests and stimulating the American economy out of the Great Depression, that's what really incentivized America's fat cats to become staunchly pro-war.

So then, 99.99999% of the time the military functions and exists solely to protect and serve the special interests of the favored few folks at the top of our socio-economic food chain. So why should the rest of us be grateful to our boys and girls in uniform for going forth to answer the call to war? As far as the real, realeconomik, realpolitik reasons why our warriors fight and die goes, it has nothing to do with serving the country as a whole or with any noble ideals. There's nothing whatsoever about the actual reasons that our G.I.s go into action that makes it something to admire or be grateful for.

What then of the reasons that military personnel may have in their minds and hearts that motivate them to risk their lives? Don't they believe that they're fighting for us, for their country, and for noble values such as democracy? Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have good intentions and shouldn't we be grateful for that? This sounds like "nice" thinking, and most people are inclined to be "nice" and go along with it, and with the conventional positive view of our "servicepeople".

But is it so nice to assume that most of the military's rank and file are gullible grunts who naively swallow all the cliché rhetoric about America's wars always being noble crusades for democracy? Isn't this kind of insulting to the intelligence of the guys and gals in the military? And doesn't viewing them as unsophisticated boy scouts who buy into the standard rationalizations of war contribute to making them precisely that, doesn't it contribute to duping them into fighting for the lies that the ruling class feeds them. If we rubber stamp the popular image of the troops as naïve Dudly Do-Rights don't we help instill that self-image in their minds, and make them more inclined to fight and die to protect us from threats and weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. Aren't we making ourselves a part of the societal con game that gets them sent home in body bags or to VA hospitals? Are we then really doing them a favor by handing them the naiveté defense for their participation in the elite's unjust wars?

Of course the reality is that a great many in the military today are not naïve at all. They went into the military for somewhat cynical economic reasons. For an income, a roof over their heads, and job training, all of which is harder to come by in the civilian job market and private sector these days. In other words, many have joined up for what they can get out of the military, not for what they can give back to their country. The military for many is like workfare in uniform with an occasional risk of getting shot at.

Then there's also the ego payoff that many young males get out of going into the military. Joining the military or a street gang is the last macho rite of passage for modern males. The psychological truth be told, many enlist because it's a way of going on an extended masculine ego trip and getting paid for it.

See the conclusion below.

http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com...

I'm grateful that we have a military,but lots of time this being thankful is used for selfish means. How can you refuse to support the troops if it is presented in such a way that makes you look unpatriotic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:37:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would add to the OP that Japan had other reasons to attack us as well... We were deliberately cutting them off from increasing their military power because wqe wanted them small enough to be able to control.
no comment
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:39:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

This.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:23:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, that is why you say please and thankyou.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:10:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, if they are good at their job I'm pleased to have their services available. Aren't you?
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means. In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:37:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:10:20 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, if they are good at their job I'm pleased to have their services available. Aren't you?

And for my gratitude I offer my baker and butcher a sum of money. The baker and butcher offer their gratitude by offering me meat or pastries. For my gratitude for the military, the government takes my money and offers it to them. For their gratitude, they offer an aggressive war I don't want.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:56:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:10:20 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, if they are good at their job I'm pleased to have their services available. Aren't you?

Gratitude, at least the way those that demand it say it, is not merely being "pleased." It is being servile, cowering before someone to whom you have an undefinable and infinite debt.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:17:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.

Your crazy. We can not just say "No."
We join to help our country in peace time, and fight when we are threatened. If we go to War b/c someone sneezed wrong, it would not be our fault.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:23:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:37:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:10:20 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, if they are good at their job I'm pleased to have their services available. Aren't you?

And for my gratitude I offer my baker and butcher a sum of money. The baker and butcher offer their gratitude by offering me meat or pastries. For my gratitude for the military, the government takes my money and offers it to them. For their gratitude, they offer an aggressive war I don't want.

It does not matter. Could you live here without the military?
Would we be "America" if it were not for war?

Be grateful.
It is illogical not to be.

They provide a service non of you would dare provide.

I at least had the testicular fortitude to join, and defend freedom.
You sleep at night b/c of a military at one point or another.

You are lucky to have our troops... Be Grateful.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:30:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.

Your crazy. We can not just say "No."
We join to help our country in peace time, and fight when we are threatened. If we go to War b/c someone sneezed wrong, it would not be our fault.

So, doing what you're told absolves you of any wrongdoing? You can see how this might be problematic. If you join an army that expects you to fight regardless of the justness of the war, then don't be surprised if people severely criticise you when you return home.

If being a soldier means not being able to pick and choose your wars, we should probably avoid being soldiers.

Fighting wars of aggression (such as Germany's war against Britain) and wars for unjust causes (such as the South versus North) seems to make the participants morally deficient. "I was just doing as I was told" doesn't cut it.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:41:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:23:41 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 7:37:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:10:20 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They're paid volunteers. Are you grateful to the baker or the butcher?

Yes, if they are good at their job I'm pleased to have their services available. Aren't you?

And for my gratitude I offer my baker and butcher a sum of money. The baker and butcher offer their gratitude by offering me meat or pastries. For my gratitude for the military, the government takes my money and offers it to them. For their gratitude, they offer an aggressive war I don't want.

It does not matter. Could you live here without the military?

what?

Would we be "America" if it were not for war?

No. You would be Canada Jr.

Be grateful.

I am.

It is illogical not to be.

I don't think "illogical" is the right word here.

They provide a service non of you would dare provide.

Them's some big words. You know that how?

I at least had the testicular fortitude to join, and defend freedom.

Now you just sound like a self-righteous d!ck. Any reasonable person would appreciate your contribution but you don't have to throw it in their face.

You sleep at night b/c of a military at one point or another.
You are lucky to have our troops... Be Grateful.

Supporting the troops doesn't mean supporting the war(s).
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:06:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:30:41 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.

Your crazy. We can not just say "No."
We join to help our country in peace time, and fight when we are threatened. If we go to War b/c someone sneezed wrong, it would not be our fault.

So, doing what you're told absolves you of any wrongdoing? You can see how this might be problematic. If you join an army that expects you to fight regardless of the justness of the war, then don't be surprised if people severely criticise you when you return home.

Those are some high and mighty words. Are you honestly demanding that soldiers should risk their lives when and only when you see fit (so you can continue living your comfortable lifestyle), and then accept your verbal wrath in every other case? Your piety amazes me.

If being a soldier means not being able to pick and choose your wars, we should probably avoid being soldiers.

Sure, lets just sit back and not do anything in the event of an attack or natural disaster, because we might get dragged into a war of questionable morals at some point in the future. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of it before.

Fighting wars of aggression (such as Germany's war against Britain) and wars for unjust causes (such as the South versus North)

Lol are you making a Civil war reference here? Abolishing slavery was an unjust cause?

seems to make the participants morally deficient. "I was just doing as I was told" doesn't cut it.

How's the weather up there on that pedestal?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:13:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:30:41 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.

Your crazy. We can not just say "No."
We join to help our country in peace time, and fight when we are threatened. If we go to War b/c someone sneezed wrong, it would not be our fault.

So, doing what you're told absolves you of any wrongdoing?

I do not think you understand the military.

You can see how this might be problematic. If you join an army that expects you to fight regardless of the justness of the war, then don't be surprised if people severely criticise you when you return home.


You really do not get it.

If being a soldier means not being able to pick and choose your wars, we should probably avoid being soldiers.

Fighting wars of aggression (such as Germany's war against Britain) and wars for unjust causes (such as the South versus North) seems to make the participants morally deficient. "I was just doing as I was told" doesn't cut it.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:16:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:06:53 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:30:41 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

In short, if the politicians are in the wrong, so are the troops.

Your crazy. We can not just say "No."
We join to help our country in peace time, and fight when we are threatened. If we go to War b/c someone sneezed wrong, it would not be our fault.

So, doing what you're told absolves you of any wrongdoing? You can see how this might be problematic. If you join an army that expects you to fight regardless of the justness of the war, then don't be surprised if people severely criticise you when you return home.

Those are some high and mighty words. Are you honestly demanding that soldiers should risk their lives when and only when you see fit (so you can continue living your comfortable lifestyle), and then accept your verbal wrath in every other case? Your piety amazes me.


Which may happen if it went private.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 1:43:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:06:53 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Those are some high and mighty words. Are you honestly demanding that soldiers should risk their lives when and only when you see fit (so you can continue living your comfortable lifestyle), and then accept your verbal wrath in every other case? Your piety amazes me.

If your criticism is that my moral theory is too demanding on people, then it's a pretty weak one. I know that I'm a moral agent and that I can easily restrict myself to killing people only when there is just cause.

Sure, lets just sit back and not do anything in the event of an attack or natural disaster, because we might get dragged into a war of questionable morals at some point in the future. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of it before.

That doesn't justify unjust actions in unjust wars on the part of combatants. On the other hand, my suggestion might have been too harsh - an abstainer might participate in defensive wars, but could accept punishment for not participating in unjust wars.

Lol are you making a Civil war reference here? Abolishing slavery was an unjust cause?

That was a civil reference, however there were two sides to that war. The Confederates were unjust in their actions and their motives, and were the aggressors in the war. Do they not deserve our scorn?

How's the weather up there on that pedestal?

"I was just following orders" doesn't cut it. It is that simple.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:12:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with OP very much. And I actually did read it all.

We should not be grateful for mass murder, and large gangs that just want to kill other countries for money.

When most people see someone in uniform they feel proud, they get stuff cheaper, when I see it, I feel disgusted.

I know why most people inlist is because of the money and perks. My mom trie to get me to join for that very reason "you can travel anywhere for free, you get free college" etc.
I guess I'm not that easy to buy. I wouldn't kill others for personal gain, especially not mass murder innocent men, women, children, and anyone that happens to be there.
And yes I think it is just like one big gang that gets benefits instead of jail.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:52:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Private military?

I think the term destroys the meaning of the subject word. A military defends a sovereign, a political body, it is funded by that body. When it is a force of one man it becomes a guard eg. Napoleon's imperial guard, the caliph's Janissary ect. If it is a private force they're mercenaries or "PMCs" as they like to known.

they're mercenaries
mercenaries

Are you serious? The incentive to fight is based on money not national duty. You libertarians go too far.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 12:34:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:52:38 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Are you serious? The incentive to fight is based on money not national duty. You libertarians go too far.

As opposed to state militaries which eat freedom and retire on patriotism...

Also, you can still feel strongly about non-government groups :I
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 1:38:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:12:46 AM, lovelife wrote:
I agree with OP very much. And I actually did read it all.

We should not be grateful for mass murder, and large gangs that just want to kill other countries for money.


I find it comical when people talk about things they know nothing about...

When most people see someone in uniform they feel proud, they get stuff cheaper, when I see it, I feel disgusted.


It should be up to the business whether they give anyone a discount. Be made at the companies not the soldiers.

I know why most people inlist is because of the money and perks. My mom trie to get me to join for that very reason "you can travel anywhere for free, you get free college" etc.

Yeah, but they pay for it with more then you know.

I guess I'm not that easy to buy. I wouldn't kill others for personal gain, especially not mass murder innocent men, women, children, and anyone that happens to be there.
And yes I think it is just like one big gang that gets benefits instead of jail.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 4:15:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 1:43:57 AM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:06:53 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Those are some high and mighty words. Are you honestly demanding that soldiers should risk their lives when and only when you see fit (so you can continue living your comfortable lifestyle), and then accept your verbal wrath in every other case? Your piety amazes me.

If your criticism is that my moral theory is too demanding on people, then it's a pretty weak one. I know that I'm a moral agent and that I can easily restrict myself to killing people only when there is just cause.

Sure, lets just sit back and not do anything in the event of an attack or natural disaster, because we might get dragged into a war of questionable morals at some point in the future. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of it before.

That doesn't justify unjust actions in unjust wars on the part of combatants. On the other hand, my suggestion might have been too harsh - an abstainer might participate in defensive wars, but could accept punishment for not participating in unjust wars.

My criticism is that you are in no place to make that demand in the first place. If you yourself were in the army and had made such a decision then I would shut my mouth. But to castrate them for a war you disagree with only to expect them to come running to your defense in the event of an actual catastrophe is the epitome of self-righteous elitism.

The soldiers are pawns. Your moral judgment is best saved for those in Congress who risk nothing in making their choice.

Lol are you making a Civil war reference here? Abolishing slavery was an unjust cause?

That was a civil reference, however there were two sides to that war. The Confederates were unjust in their actions and their motives, and were the aggressors in the war. Do they not deserve our scorn?

I would not hold anything against an individual soldier simply by virtue of the fact that he was fighting on the side of the Confederates. Just how I don't hold anything against German soldiers in WWII for nothing other than the fact that they were pawns of the Nazis.

If you want to scold a soldier for specific immoral actions like killing civilians in cold blood or murdering unarmed prisoners, that's one thing. But to level that hate at someone you know nothing about just because you don't like that fact that he's doing a job that you have general reservations about, is somewhat pathetic.

How's the weather up there on that pedestal?

"I was just following orders" doesn't cut it. It is that simple.

No, it's not.

Call me crazy, but if nothing else then I "support the troops" simply because in the event that we were forced into a defensive war, they would be the ones dying to defend me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 4:18:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

Actually you are legally bound not to follow illegal orders. It is more a consideration for the Officers than the enlisted. You still have free will.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 4:27:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 4:18:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:19:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:22:37 PM, 20000miles wrote:
I too couldn't be bothered reading all that.

The bottom line is, all soldiers are moral agents, and it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for soldiers involved in unjust wars fought through unjust means.

We do not choose to go to War. We do as we are told...

Actually you are legally bound not to follow illegal orders. It is more a consideration for the Officers than the enlisted. You still have free will.

You obviously have no clue.
We sign a contract that if we are at war we must go to war.

I know.

If you fight it, you will be kicked out or punished by way of the military society.