Why I don't 'support our troops' (and why no religious person should)

[sandandfoam]

I would normally agree about no violence. Most of the time, violence is not warranted at all. I got irritated in the past for what I considered "oil wars" But let me give you some scenarios which may be unlikely but could still happen:
1. Someone breaks into your house with an intent to harm you or your loved ones. You have to be able to stop that person and there are times when the person has to be injured to be stopped.
2. You see a man who is harming/raping another person, and there is no phone or your cell phone is not working and you are able to stop the person from harming the other. I don't think it is very kind to just stand there and let that happen.
And there are many other examples.

The same kinds of things can happen to our country, as well. If there is no military, then if we have an invader to our country, then they can take over our country, kill the citizens- including you and your family, take away your freedom of various things we take for granted- which includes religion, lifestyle, and even sex orientation. We have to be able to defend ourselves and if we can't do it ourselves, a military set aside will do it for us.

There is a lot to consider before making any unilateral decisions.

Christine the army in my country wouldn't deter a herd of deer and we've got along fine for the last 90 odd years.

 

[*Anne*]

My opinion of the quote hasn't improved.

Damn. I tried.

 

[no-body]

I agree that we should never blindly just "support our troops" but for different reasons than stated. Support our troops has been turned into nothing more than a mantra of propaganda. Mostly it means, lets never criticize our troops for their actions because it's all the presidents/upper brass orders if we do somehow catch them doing anything wrong. Why this may be the case for things such as general atrocities like Iraq, many soldiers do commit war crimes all on their own. They should be and need to be called on this as well as upper brass.

And besides when is "just following orders" a justifiable defense anyway? Remember when Goring tried that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Christine the army in my country wouldn't deter a herd of deer and we've got along fine for the last 90 odd years.

Ireland? How old are you?

 

[Storm]

Why I don't 'support our troops' (and why no religious person should)

Who gave you authority over my opinions?

If killing is wrong in one case, it is wrong in all cases.

No, it isn't.

 

[sandandfoam]

Ireland? How old are you?

Go away out of that. Would you be afraid of the Irish Army?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Go away out of that. Would you be afraid of the Irish Army?

I don't know.

But Ireland has not exactly been a peaceful place for the past 90 years... perhaps because the Irish Army is weak.

 

[sandandfoam]

But Ireland has not exactly been a peaceful place for the past 90 years... perhaps because the Irish Army is weak.

See how peaceful it is now since the guns have been put away?
I think there's a lesson there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

See how peaceful it is now since the guns have been put away?
I think there's a lesson there.

Oh, I agree completely.

I think that if the Palestinians could produce a Ghandi, that would be the first step towards peace. A visionary who convinces the Arab states to follow non-violence would end the conflict forever.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think that if the Palestinians could produce a Ghandi, that would be the first step towards peace. A visionary who convinces the Arab states to follow non-violence would end the conflict forever.

Now we're on the same page.

 

[ChristineES]

Oh, I agree completely.

I think that if the Palestinians could produce a Ghandi, that would be the first step towards peace. A visionary who convinces the Arab states to follow non-violence would end the conflict forever.

I think we (The USA)could use a Ghandi, too. (Ghandi has become an adjective, how flattering for him). In fact, the whole world could use a whole bus load of Ghandis. :yes:

 

[sandandfoam]

In fact, the whole world could use a whole bus load of Ghandis. :yes:

In a very small way everyone that engages with nonviolence is one more for the bus.

 

[LoTrobador]

I can't agree, violence entails agression.

How would you define violence? Does it always necessarily entail aggression (and how would you define it)?

 

[sandandfoam]

How would you define violence? Does it always necessarily entail aggression (and how would you define it)?

Oxford English dictionary (ninth edition)
Violence- the quality of being violent

Violent- using or tending to use aggresive physical force

 

[LoTrobador]

Oxford English dictionary (ninth edition)
Violence- the quality of being violent

Violent- using or tending to use aggresive physical force

And how would you define aggression? If someone would want to kill someone else's wife, and because of the distance the only way to stop him would be for the husband to shoot him, would you see it as an aggressive act?

 

[sandandfoam]

And how would you define aggression?

I just gave you the dictionary definition which I accept.

If someone would want to kill someone else's wife, and because of the distance the only way to stop him would be for the husband to shoot him, would you see it as an aggressive act?

of course
so?

 

[LoTrobador]

I just gave you the dictionary definition which I accept.

But not of aggression.

of course

Would you see it as unacceptable then?

so?

Simply asking about your view.

 

[sandandfoam]

But not of aggression.

My apologies.
1 The act or practice of attaking without provocation 2 an unprovoked attack 3 self assertiveness; forcefulness 4psychol a hostile or destructive tendancy; such behaviour

aggresive - 1 of a person: a given to aggression; openly hostile. b forceful; self assertive 2 (of an act) offensive, hostile

Would you see it as unacceptable then?

Yes

 

[Tristesse]

I will put an exception right at the top of this post. If you're drafted, most of what I say here does not apply.

Why support a volunteer soldier?

I've been faced with this question quite a bit coming to age in the Bush years. The conclusion that I've finally landed on is, there is no reason.

A volunteer soldier signs up to be an agent of the state's war machine. In doing so, he/she allows the state to demand him/her to kill another human being. Questioning said authority is a crime, and is understood to be so when the soldier signs on the dotted (or is it solid) line. I don't believe that an individual soldier is responsible for the greater evil of said war machine, but the willingness to do exactly what that entity demands nullifies their innocence. In the modern war era, the soldier is aware of what he/she is getting into. With the abundance of media the terrors of war can actually be seen with merely a click of the mouse. The days of soldiers not knowing exactly what they are getting into are over.

Most major religions have a rule against murder as a top priority, but it seems that their followers take the 'patriotic' stance of 'murdering one person is a bad thing, but murder in mass for the sake of [national security/protecting national business interests/protecting culture] is required and in some cases God's will. This is contradictory to the very ethics of the religions of these 'patriots'.

Being in the United States, I am surrounded by Christian war-culture, but I have yet to hear a solid argument for what I hear termed a 'just war'. It is simple:
If killing is wrong in one case, it is wrong in all cases.

Well, first off, most religions are a bit contradictory on the whole murder issue. Particularly the Abrahamic religions. The god of the old testament orders slaughtering of whole villages as recompense for not believing in him. But that aside, I can think of just a few scenarios off of the top of my head where killing another human being would be acceptable. For example, self defense, if someone has a gun and is intent on killing me, and I have a gun I intend to kill that person before he or she has a chance to kill me. Not all killing or murder is wrong. However, killing in cold blood or for no reason is wrong.

 

[ChristineES]

There are reasons we should support our troops even if we don't support the wars:
1. Soldiers, sailors, etc are human beings who have families to support.
2. Those same soldiers, etc feel as though they are protecting those families and their country
3. Not all soldiers, etc kill- there are the ones who repair things or fix meals, etc. I was in the Navy and I never killed anyone or worked on any weapons. I fixed communication devices.