Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So, do you know longer support them when they reenlist? (The military is having trouble with recruitment but continues to have stronger than predicted reenlistment from soldiers who have actually been to Iraq.)

There are a couple of reasons for that. There is a lot of money promised if they re-enlist. There have also been reports (I don't know how wide spread) of denial of extended medical care if they don't re-enlist (I know someone who injured their knee during PT and was told if he didn't re-enlist they wouldn't fix it).

Then of course are the people who want to go back because they feel like they getting to do what they are trained to do (my ex is one of those).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The reason why I feel the troops are deserving of support is because it was not their decision to specifically fight in Iraq. Once enlisted, they have very little choice in the matter. Most, more than likely, enlisted simply to protect our country. How could I not support someone who is willing to put their life on the line to protect our nation and its freedoms. I think their sacrifice is so admirable in fact, that I do not want them being sent to places to fight for reasons other than protecting our nation and its freedoms. In the case of Iraq, I don't believe they were sent to protect us and that is something that I cannot support. But I don't fault the soldiers for being there or for protecting themselves.

As far as wanting them to be victorious, I don't think there is going to be any real victory here. We are not going to stop terrorism. We are not going to turn Iraq into what we would consider a true democracy. We aren't going to win over the Iraqis in any definitive way. In fact, our staying there seems to be destabilizing the entire region. So if staying there is not going to achieve any worthwhile goals beyond what we already have done (removing Saddam), then, in my mind, the only way to support the troops is to call for their withdrawal. That is the only way to ensure their safety in this losing battle.

I think having the troops be home safe, even if it means them living with the fact that they didn't win an unwinnable war, is far more supportive of them than asking them to continue to get blown up on a daily basis with no end in sight, while trying to achieve something that more than likely isn't even possible.

That's about the best way I can put how I feel.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If you're willing I'd like to see detail on what you think each of those things means. At core, my question still is "how do you support someone committing what you consider an immoral act"?

At least in such a way that "support" is a word used with any actual meaning.

In the interest of not answering the question myself, I'd ask you if you "support" law enforcement officer, since they are involved in enforcing laws that you believe should not exist.

[Alex]

As I see it, Motorboat Cruiser, you are supporting what you wish they would do (come home safe), not what they are actually doing (killing and subduing Iraq). You're not really supporting them, you're offering them support if they do what you want. Admiration is not support.

As for the idea that you and BarTopDancer above you state: how does monetary incentive absolve a soldier from the moral content of their actions? If killing Iraqis is unjust, does it become less so because someone was offered a $20,000 re-enlistment bonus.

Also, to say that someone is absolved of moral responsibility simply because they signed up for one thing and then were ordered to do another is to reward moral cowardice. Every soldier has the ability to not be in Iraq. If the government told me to go kill someone I did not agree was justified I would go to jail first. As soon as we start shooting soldiers who refuse deployment to Iraq then I'll begin to feel they are absolved of moral responsibility for their acts. It is ok to unjustly kill Iraqis because you are unwilling to go to jail? I don't buy that.

Despite the fact that they were "just following orders" any soldiers who participated in the invasion of Panama are responsible for their actions and did not have my support (though I certainly did not want them to die unless them doing so was the only way that the invasion of Panama would fail).

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I'm not saying you want him dead, that if you oppose the war you want our soldiers dead. I'm saying that if you oppose the war then you should find our soldiers being dead preferable to the people on the other side being dead. It is easy to say that you'd prefer that neither end up being dead but that is not based on the reality of it. You can not simultaneously condemn an act and support the success of that act.

I support our troops. I realize that they are doing their job, what they were ordered to do. And while some of them believe that they are fighting for the greater cause, are making a difference, not all of them do.

It is not their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war on false intelligence. Heck, even if the intelligence was true it still isn't their fault.

And anyone who knows me knows I do not support this war.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In the interest of not answering the question myself, I'd ask you if you "support" law enforcement officer, since they are involved in enforcing laws that you believe should not exist.

It depends on whether they are enforcing a law that I consider immoral or whether they are enforcing a law that I simply disagree with as policy.

There aren't many laws that I consider outright immoral. Most are simply policy disputes. I disagree with most speed limits but don't consider them immoral. Police officers have my support in enforcing those laws, even if I don't always obey them myselves.

A police officer (and his management) enforcing an anti-sodomy law targetted to homosexuals would not have my support.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not enjoy disciplining my children. My goal is to not have to discipline them because they make they will make the right (as a parent, I determine right) choices. If I have to discipline them, have I failed in my goal? No. not in the least. I am hopefully moving toward the goal of not having to dicsipline them by disciplining them.

Our goal during the cold war was not to nuke to USSR. Yet we built a tremendous arsenal to ensure we would not have to use them (mutually assured destruction).

It is most certainly possible to have a goal of the elimination of conflict while engaging in conflict itself.

Well, that's a whole 'nother thread altogether, and a fight we definitely do not want to have. But if the analogy is supposed to say that it's a means to an end, I'm on a whole different plane about it. Just as I do not punish children, as I don't believe that it teaches them anything other than might makes right, I would not support killing as a means of stopping said behavior.

But hey, I'm mostly a pacisifist, so I know we won't agree. I understand your viewpoint, however.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

It is not their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war on false intelligence. Heck, even if the intelligence was true it still isn't their fault.

Of course it isn't their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war. It is their fault that they are in another country to fight a war. Joining the military does not infantilization you and absolve you of all responsibility for your decisions.

If this is an unjust war, then all right-thinking soldiers should have gone to jail before they'd unjustly commit murder. Now, it doesn't matter whether they think the war is unjust. The vast majority of them do not. What matters is that you think the war unjust and should therefore hold them responsible for their actions. Is there something about American soldiers that makes them immune from personal responsibility? We don't really ever afford that privilege to enemy soldiers who commit acts we think unjust.

Since we're at war with Al Qaeda, do we absolve a failed suicide bomber because he was "just following orders?"

[Alex]

And here, to use a historical example is where the hippies actually got it right.

In my view, the Vietnam War was an immoral war. Every American soldier who participated in that war short of threat of death (and really imprisonment was the penatly for refusal) should be ashamed and shamed. So should everybody at home who "supported the troops." The hippies understood that "oppose the war, support the troops" was a paradox. At least all the grunt soldiers in Hitler's army have the excuse that they actually would have been shot for refusal (and yet we still expect them all to feel shame).

[innerSpaceman]

And yet we cannot say "we don't support the troops" and remotely hope to persuade others to our peaceful point of view. That's quite a paradox right there.

Are we morally reprehensible for telling a lie in order to gain support for what we believe will prevent more death? It's quite a balancing act necessary to prioritize moral transgressions. It would be great if pure truth could achieve world peace. I would be wonderful if our soldiers could kill only terrorists and not Iraqi's fighting from their freedom from an occupying army.


I don't buy this bit about soldiers not enlisting for service in Iraq. They enlisted to be warriors wherever the Pentagon tells them to be warriors.

And yet I don't want to treat them as shabily as returning Vietnam vets were treated. I don't hate them. I pity them. They have made terrible choices and will have to live with the consequences. I feel no need to add any measure of my displeasure.

But they lost my support the minute they signed up.