• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Initial intent, Dust1n.

A family man's initial intent for the evening is to tuck his kids into bed and go to sleep.

An intruder's initial intent for the evening is to break into a house that isn't his, take what isn't his, and possibly kill anyone who makes this difficult for him. Sometimes the intent is to simply kill, all by itself.

Do you not have crime where you live?

I say this conversation is pointless because you seem to be unable to tell the difference between the average person and a criminal.

If there really are a lot of gun toting criminals ready to come, break in, kill, rape and do lewd things to the family pets......all over america

Isnt this an indication of something very wrong with america.... that really needs somethign else, besides the ability to simply shoot, maim or mortally injure people?

It seems to me its a cycle of fear, violence and death...perpetuated largely by those in ivory castles that simply wont be affected by this.........largely

Maybe there are fousands of drug crazed crack heads ready to kill you
Or maybe there isnt.......
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Initial intent, Dust1n.

A family man's initial intent for the evening is to tuck his kids into bed and go to sleep.

An intruder's initial intent for the evening is to break into a house that isn't his, take what isn't his, and possibly kill anyone who makes this difficult for him. Sometimes the intent is to simply kill, all by itself.

Do you not have crime where you live?

I say this conversation is pointless because you seem to be unable to tell the difference between the average person and a criminal.

I see... and what if the intruder's initial defense has nothing to do with harming the person they are robbing? Is defense of property a justification for killing?
 

christallen

Cynical Optimist
It's your choice whether or not to support "a volunteer soldier." (Could be your sister, your cousin, your mom or dad, or your child.) I support my two children who serve and my daughter's husband who serves as well.

I support them because I agree with the necessity of a strong military, and I agree with their individual choices for joining and for remaining active duty.

You support the military, and I don't. Glad we got that out of the way. -- I do have family in the military. I don't support their choice.

I also believe that a volunteer military is stronger than a drafted military. With a volunteer military, we know that those who are serving are doing so freely - rather than being forced into service that they may not believe in. I am opposed to the draft.

I agree that they have made a choice, but that choice was to join the military. In joining the military this person has become an active, willing participant in war. I question the morality of the very act of war which has implications for all those involved.

That's your spin, based on your own biases. I am sure you would say that a soldier's spin would be that he/she is "defending our country." A case can be made for either perspective.

At least in the country that I reside (US) offensive wars outweigh defensive wars by a staggering margin. The War of Independence is arguably defensive considering it was a revolutionary act. That pretty much only leaves the War of 1812. All other conflicts have involved acts of aggression on our part.

This is the beauty of having a volunteer military. Those who oppose military service are not forced to serve. You should be very pleased with this. Not all countries give their citizens that much freedom of choice. Your right NOT to serve is protected by those who DO serve.

In what way does the military's actions protect any of my immediate civil rights? The military has been a major tool in the suppression of those rights.

Military service is not just about killing - and not all killing is murder either.

The military's sole purpose is warfare. Warfare typically involves killing. Just because an individual soldier is faced with the option 'kill or be killed' does not negate the fact that this soldier is a volunteer who chose to be in this situation.

A strong military DETERS much violence and aggression.

How does a strong military deter violence and aggression? The very act of building a military is considered an aggressive act on the national level. In national politics, potential aggression is aggression. (Case in point: If Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, they are trying to build their military and provide for their national defence. The very act of building said weapons is a sign of aggression to the countries who Iran opposes.)

This is too broad a generality. Soldiers are taught to respect a chain of command, and to obey their superiors, but they are also taught the laws of warfare, and the boundaries of the Geneva Convention. They have legal recourse if they believe that human rights are being abused.

How can one soldier have recourse? Is there an actual mechanism for the soldier to refuse to do something because they see it as wrong? The chain of command nullifies the soldier's ability to make a moral decision on the battlefield. (S)he merely has to trust in the moral guidance of his/her superiors. Don't even get me started on the Geneva Conventions, we haven't respected those since we signed it.

Apparently you are a pacifist, and that's entirely your right. But most civilizations, legal systems, and people in general believe that not all killing is murder, and that unfortunately, sometimes the act of killing another person is not only necessary, but morally required.

And what, pray you, is the typical result of one person being killed for 'moral reasons'?

That being said, in war sometimes innocent people are injured or killed. This is one of the tragedies of war and a very compelling reason to avoid unnecessary military action.

I would argue that all military action is unnecessary.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
I see... and what if the intruder's initial defense has nothing to do with harming the person they are robbing? Is defense of property a justification for killing?

I'd certainly kill over garbage pail kids...dagnammit

garbagepalin.jpg
 

*Anne*

Bliss Ninny
I see... and what if the intruder's initial defense has nothing to do with harming the person they are robbing? Is defense of property a justification for killing?

This is where is gets foggy for me. I would not want to harm anyone over property.

Cheese, that's a whole other topic certainly worthy of discussion. :)
 

dust1n

Zindīq
no, I'm saying there'd be less gun toting drug fiends breaking into people's houses or drug stores in order to feed addictions, to live etc etc etc

Poverty is a large factor in crime,.....

the only one? no

but I doubt if poverty wasnt so bad in that area of Indiana, just outside of Chicago.... that aremed gaurds would not be needed outside of a drug store!

Maybe I'm just weird in that I find the idea of armed guards outside a store...being "ridiculous" to be polite.....:sarcastic

Maybe its normal for other parts of america..and it is just me that is unaware that this is how America IS?....

Perhaps you can inform me....

I would agree.. and that is to say, the majority of violence can be addressed by not nonviolent means. Guards at a drug store is just enabling more violence to take place.



But I've been digressing hard, and I want to stay on the war.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You support the military, and I don't. Glad we got that out of the way. -- I do have family in the military. I don't support their choice.

I agree that they have made a choice, but that choice was to join the military. In joining the military this person has become an active, willing participant in war. I question the morality of the very act of war which has implications for all those involved.


At least in the country that I reside (US) offensive wars outweigh defensive wars by a staggering margin. The War of Independence is arguably defensive considering it was a revolutionary act. That pretty much only leaves the War of 1812. All other conflicts have involved acts of aggression on our part.


In what way does the military's actions protect any of my immediate civil rights? The military has been a major tool in the suppression of those rights.


The military's sole purpose is warfare. Warfare typically involves killing. Just because an individual soldier is faced with the option 'kill or be killed' does not negate the fact that this soldier is a volunteer who chose to be in this situation.

How does a strong military deter violence and aggression? The very act of building a military is considered an aggressive act on the national level. In national politics, potential aggression is aggression. (Case in point: If Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, they are trying to build their military and provide for their national defence. The very act of building said weapons is a sign of aggression to the countries who Iran opposes.)

How can one soldier have recourse? Is there an actual mechanism for the soldier to refuse to do something because they see it as wrong? The chain of command nullifies the soldier's ability to make a moral decision on the battlefield. (S)he merely has to trust in the moral guidance of his/her superiors. Don't even get me started on the Geneva Conventions, we haven't respected those since we signed it.

And what, pray you, is the typical result of one person being killed for 'moral reasons'?

I would argue that all military action is unnecessary.

I know you would - which is why it would be a colossal waste of my time and yours to even try to argue any of the other points that either of us brought up.

Glad we got that out of the way.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sure, I understand your view on violence even though I don't agree with it.
My question is can you understand a non-violent outlook - allowing that it is a view you don't agree with?

I can understand the desire for the cessation of all violence. Heck, that's my own desire.

I can also RESPECT a person's right to be a pacifist. I can appreciate a person's insistance on only non-violent solutions - for themselves.

I can appreciate the depth of life expressions that comes with a diverse group.

But I do not accept the loss of my own right to resort to violence, if it is necessary to protect or defend my life, loved ones, property, or liberties - or those of others who are not able to protect or defend themselves.
 

kai

ragamuffin
i can understand the desire for the cessation of all violence. Heck, that's my own desire.

I can also respect a person's right to be a pacifist. I can appreciate a person's insistance on only non-violent solutions - for themselves.

I can appreciate the depth of life expressions that comes with a diverse group.

But i do not accept the loss of my own right to resort to violence, if it is necessary to protect or defend my life, loved ones, property, or liberties - or those of others who are not able to protect or defend themselves.

ditto
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
At least in the country that I reside (US) offensive wars outweigh defensive wars by a staggering margin. The War of Independence is arguably defensive considering it was a revolutionary act. That pretty much only leaves the War of 1812. All other conflicts have involved acts of aggression on our part.

You might want to double-check the history books. Every war I can think of with the exception of 2 that the US has been involved in was a defensive measure:

1. Revolutionary War: British tyranny pushed us over the edge.
2. War of 1812: Went to war with England due to their trade restrictions, impressment of US citizens into the British military, and British interference with US affairs.
3. Civil War: The CSA attacked US territory.
4. World War I: Germany and allies violated US neutrality in sinking US vessels.
5. World War II: Japan attacked a US base, Axis powers declare war.
6. Korean War: UN joint venture to defend South Korea from North Korean invasion.
7. Gulf War: UN joint venture to free Kuwait from Iraqi invasion.
8. War on Terror: Citizens of multiple countries murdered, joint venture to eliminate terrorists and cut of support for them.

I would argue that all military action is unnecessary.

I'm not so sure that Europe would agree with you there. When a country steamrolls their way through yours with tanks, planes, and infantry you tend to have to fight to keep what's yours. England and France tried the peaceful route in the 1930s. It didn't work.

Military action should never be the first option, but there are times when it is necessary. Human rights must be defended against anyone who wishes to take them away.
 

averageJOE

zombie
...
How can one soldier have recourse? Is there an actual mechanism for the soldier to refuse to do something because they see it as wrong? The chain of command nullifies the soldier's ability to make a moral decision on the battlefield. (S)he merely has to trust in the moral guidance of his/her superiors...

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! And WRONG! Your "vision" or "idea" of what the military actually is is completly wrong. Soldiers always have a choice. In fact, in basic training there were classes on this and mock scenieros to remind the trainiees that just because someone is put in charge of you dosn't mean that you have to carry out an order that is against the law, unjust, against the ROE, or just plain morally wrong.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You might want to double-check the history books. Every war I can think of with the exception of 2 that the US has been involved in was a defensive measure:

1. Revolutionary War: British tyranny pushed us over the edge.
2. War of 1812: Went to war with England due to their trade restrictions, impressment of US citizens into the British military, and British interference with US affairs.
3. Civil War: The CSA attacked US territory.
4. World War I: Germany and allies violated US neutrality in sinking US vessels.
5. World War II: Japan attacked a US base, Axis powers declare war.
6. Korean War: UN joint venture to defend South Korea from North Korean invasion.
7. Gulf War: UN joint venture to free Kuwait from Iraqi invasion.
8. War on Terror: Citizens of multiple countries murdered, joint venture to eliminate terrorists and cut of support for them.
There is a different way to view some of them:
5) The US attacked Japan 1st in the form of an embargo, backed up by the military.
6) This was a police action. To stop the spread of communism can be called defensive, but it's a gray area.
7) Similar to #6
8) I don't know if this fits the definition of a "war". But still, it could be argued that the west fired the 1st salvo against mid-eastern Islamic countries by carving up Iraq & Palestine, & meddling in Iranian affairs.

I'm all in favor of the use of violence in a strong defense, but I think that all should strive to minimize the number of occasions to defend ourselves.
 
Peace be upon you.

Been in the forces does not make you an killer.

Numbers 1:1-54
And the Lord spake into Moses in the wilderness of Si'nai, in the Tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

2. Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every name by their palls;

3. from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth TO WAR in Israel:

thou and Aaron shall number them by their ARMIES.

Exodus 17:1-16
8. Them came Am'alek, and fought with Israel in Reph'idim.
9. And Moses said into Joshua. Choose us out man, and go out, fight with Am'alek: tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God on my hand....

Genesis 14:1-24
14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he ARMED his TRAINED servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
 

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
If another Hitler came to power and armed forces came to our shores to kill or enslave us, what do you suppose the moral thing to do would be?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! And WRONG! Your "vision" or "idea" of what the military actually is is completly wrong. Soldiers always have a choice. In fact, in basic training there were classes on this and mock scenieros to remind the trainiees that just because someone is put in charge of you dosn't mean that you have to carry out an order that is against the law, unjust, against the ROE, or just plain morally wrong.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is the 21st century and most western countries (including the US) have adapted their military systems to allow individual soldiers recourse if they feel they are being asked to do something that is morally or legally wrong.

My three kids in the military don't feel at all oppressed or forced to behave immorally, even my son who is airborne infantry. All have served in combat zones.
 

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
Thank you for pointing this out. This is the 21st century and most western countries (including the US) have adapted their military systems to allow individual soldiers recourse if they feel they are being asked to do something that is morally or legally wrong.

My three kids in the military don't feel at all oppressed or forced to behave immorally, even my son who is airborne infantry. All have served in combat zones.
My thanks and appreciation to your sons for their service to our country.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
My thanks and appreciation to your sons for their service to our country.

Thank YOU for being appreciative - of my son (corporal - Army), my son in law (Staff Sgt - Air Force, headed for officer candidate school in a few months), and my daughter (Staff Sgt - Air Force).
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
The funny thing about people who don't support troops are they are usually the ones who aren't in the middle of the war.

Its all too easy to criticise soldiers, but too hard to try and put yourself in their shoes because lets face it, how many of us here actually know whats its like on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul?

A popular saying in Australia: Support our troops or stand in front of them. Its simple, not many people suppport the war, but we will support the bravery of our soldiers for dealing with the horrors our government has sent them into.
 
Top