posted
If you say everyone has a moral obligation to be a soldier, wouldn't you also say that everyone has a moral obligation to be a teacher? After all, teachers do often say the reason they do what they do is because they feel a moral need to help children - just as soldiers feel the moral need to defend. Both needs are legitimate needs that must be fulfilled, and I would argue that the need for education is actually considerably greater than the need for war-fighting. So why would one moral obligation exist but not the other?
Is it because we have all received the benefits of the soldiers who fought to secure America for us? It is equally true that everyone who received a free education did so because of the efforts of the teachers who came before us - so I don't think that argument works.
On that note, why doesn't everyone have an obligation to do EVERYTHING? Why doesn't everyone have an obligation to become a doctor? After all, health care is an important need, and all our lives depended on doctors even since we were born. Why doesn't everyone have an obligation to become a janitor? Sanitation is key to the health of our nation, and we have all taken benefits from those who keep the world clean. Why doesn't everyone have a moral obligation to become a firefighter, or a politician, or a cook, or a computer programmer, or a preacher?
My best guess is that we don't have moral obligations for any of those things, and that we don't have moral obligations to be soldiers either. I think our actual moral obligation is to take the gifts we personally have been given and use them to the best of our abilities to serve whatever we believe the greater good to be. Perhaps for some in some situations that may mean fighting in wars. For others it probably means entirely different professions.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Japan was given as an example of a nation that's gotten along fine without an offensive army. You countered by saying that they're starting to develop one now, but in the past they didn't really need one, because their neighbors didn't constitute a real threat to them. My statement was meant to point out that that didn't really serve as a good rebuttal, since our neighbors aren't a threat to us, either. So if Japan didn't need more than a defensive army in the past because none of the countries around them could threaten them, than that applies to us now, too.
As it happens, I don't think we should downsize our armed forces to purely defensive capabilities, although I would rather it was smaller than it is now. But saying that another country needs more of an army now because their neighbors are more of a threat. . . well, we could cut our military in half and still be able to easily defend ourselves from our neighbors, if need be.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: But remember the only reason Japan's army was removed in the first place was because of bad behavior. The US basically told Japan, "We are in charge of things in East Asia for the time being," and they had no choice but to accept.
edit: The US for the past 50+ years has acted as Japan's de facto military.
If for some reason the US had been an aggressor in WW2 and a foreign power had been forced to invade us to get us to stop our inhuman imperialist empire expansion plans then yes I would agree the US would NOT currently need a large army. If the US chose to not involve itself in world affairs then that in of itself would warrant a downsizing of the military.
Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately depending on who you talk to, America has ALWAYS wanted to be politically neutral while choosing sides when it comes to economics. I personally think its our failure to remain neutral or isolationist economically that prevents us from ever being either politically.
Since we cannot remain politically neutral we have to have a larger army then we would otherwise need as we tend to step on people's toes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know why Japan's military capabilities were restricted. The fact remains that other countries that participated heavily in the World Wars then downsized their military when the wars were over. They didn't get rid of them, certainly, but they downsized considerably more than the US has. Those countries all participate in world affairs, politically and certainly economically. Your argument does not hold water.
The other option to not having a larger army than everyone else, of course, would be to stop stepping on people's toes. You're basically saying "we need a large army so we can continue to act like a jerk towards the rest of the world." We don't need a large army, and we don't need to act like a jerk.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: I think you are misunderstanding me.
The US did not downsize as much as other countries as they recognized the Soviet Union as a threat just as dangerous as Hitler. There was a sharp devision in the US as to whether we should gear up to take on Russia or if we should recede back into an isolationist mode.
Not to mention most European militaries had been downsized as that is the natural result of years of fighting, your stuff gets blown up and your men die.
After WW2 we had periods of downsizing and bolstering the military. We didn't just go up and up and up. Reagan created an unprecidented jolt in military spending, and since then we've been at a pretty high level.
quote:The other option to not having a larger army than everyone else, of course, would be to stop stepping on people's toes. You're basically saying "we need a large army so we can continue to act like a jerk towards the rest of the world." We don't need a large army, and we don't need to act like a jerk.
That is not the arguement I was trying to make. I am saying that because the US is NOT economically neutral it will result in our stepping on people's toes. The response we have opted to take since people don't like having their toes stepped on is to bolster our military.
I did not enter this arguement with an opinion on whether our military is too large, too small, or just right. Merely that Japan is not a good example of a successful country not needing a military as the US has been acting as its de facto military for 50+ years, Taiwan is the exact same deal. Now that China is becoming a major player in the world scene, we have basically said to Japan, "Look to yourselves more for protection as China is getting awful big. Go ahead and build a bigger army."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To go back to the original comment, I'm not entirely sure if Japan is really a good example of a nation without a military, especially when it comes to the issue of paying taxes to support one.
Sure, legally they have word games, but practically speaking they spent about the sixth most in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures (I suspect that while Japan is officially fifth, they probably under-counted China, and the US for that matter, although that would not change the order)
Indeed, depending on the interpretation of BB's original use of the world "recently", it seems that their defence spending has been stable for a while being sixth as far back as 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_JapanPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the cold war has been over for 20 years. *shrug* I still don't think your argument works, and you're not telling me anything I don't know. We, as a country, have made a choice to be the most powerful military force in the world. It was not a necessary choice.
And no matter how many times you say "because we're not economically neutral we're going to step on people's toes so we need a big army," the fact remains that no other country is economically neutral either, and plenty of them manage just fine without stepping on other people's toes, or at least not to the extent we do. I do not accept that as a valid reason for needing a big army.
I think that if we stepped back from our "policing the world" mode, other countries would step up to fill the gap, and the resulting balance of power would be healthier for the entire world, not to mention making us less of a target for people who are looking for something to hate.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To bring the thread back to the point a bit,..
choosing to be a solider does not show a lack of moral fortitude in my opinion. I think it actually shows a lot more of it. I woudl be arguing the opposite of the argument though with the same assumptions that we as a people share the same morality.
Each of us have a different idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The one thing I will say though is that a solider is a soldier and that is there job. You can have a moral doctor or an immoral one.Same goes for any job, cop, teacher, lawyer (though mos tin this trade lean to the latter) driver, banker, and soldier.
It is blanket statements that people use that show their ignorance in understanding what it means to be an American. You can't put label on us that fully describes us. We are not the melting pot that we talk about through history, but more of a stew. Peas and Carrots living together but you can still pick them out.
This is what makes us nearly unique as a country, because of our diversity of immigration, and our own regional diversity.
Because of this stating the choice to become a soldier is a choice of questionable morality shows this persons ignorance in assuming we all think just like him. I woudl even go as far, because of the extremist views to say this person may even be working for other extremist, and can not be happy being in a free America because their view is so blinded they can not see, understand, or tolerate the diversity that has made this country so great.
But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
How do the soldiers prevent these things?
---
edit:
quote:choosing to be a solider does not show a lack of moral fortitude in my opinion. I think it actually shows a lot more of it.
That would rely more on how and why the decision was made than on the decision itself, wouldn't it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
How do the soldiers prevent these things?
By protecting the constitution that ensures those rights. It even states it in the soldiers oath.
quote:I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
quote:By protecting the constitution that ensures those rights. It even states it in the soldiers oath.
I wasn't aware the Constitution was under serious attack. What are these threats and how are the soldiers defending against them?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: And the cold war has been over for 20 years. *shrug* I still don't think your argument works, and you're not telling me anything I don't know. We, as a country, have made a choice to be the most powerful military force in the world. It was not a necessary choice.
Please understand I am saying, "This is what happened, this is the rationale used," not, "This is why what we did is right IMO."
quote: And no matter how many times you say "because we're not economically neutral we're going to step on people's toes so we need a big army," the fact remains that no other country is economically neutral either, and plenty of them manage just fine without stepping on other people's toes, or at least not to the extent we do. I do not accept that as a valid reason for needing a big army.
Again I never said, "Because we step on toes we need a big army, I said in effect, "The US steps on toes and because we do the country has opted for a large army." I'm NOT saying anything close to, "I agree or disagree."
If the country is not economically neutral I challenge you to find one that does not step on toes.
quote: I think that if we stepped back from our "policing the world" mode, other countries would step up to fill the gap, and the resulting balance of power would be healthier for the entire world, not to mention making us less of a target for people who are looking for something to hate.
Maybe so, but its the chicken egg arguement. We took the route and now find ourselves policing the world. Can we step back now, who will fill the gap? Again I am NOT saying what the US has done is right or wrong. The only reason I got into this arguement is because somebody said, "Japan has a tiny military and look it's doing super good!"
America's foreign policy would have to be drastically different for us to warrant a serious downsizing of the military. It would not be an easy sale to the American people as well. Again! I am not saying whether I think we should or should not downsize the military.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because the constitution is not currently under attack does not mean soldiers are not ready to defend it. Our soldiers, right now are "obeying the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over them".
They guy from the original link is protected by the constitution. The soldiers protect, when needed, the constitution.
Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
I can't think of a military action in my life time where a member of our armed forces has fought for my rights or to defend the constitution. I do not anticipate having any such thing occur in my remaining lifetime.
As such, I don't think the original claim is accurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the current danger to the Constitution is coming from something soldiers can protect against. Let us know if you have any examples.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Could you explain what future dangers you see the Constitution being in where our military will be needed to defend against?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
Of course it is. Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How would they have "indirectly fought" for my freedoms?
Hoo boy. OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
If the government had sent nobody they would be ignoring what the constitution clearly mandates and the integrity of our peaceful society as outlined by that constitution would be seriously damaged. The constitution works because the government has muscle, i.e the military to make sure it is observed.
Though this didn't happen in your lifetime, at least I hope not Kennedy sending troops to enforce integration (desegregation?) was an excelent example of this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could the soldiers please fix the wiretapping thing? Thanks! And maybe reign in the executive branch?
BlackBlade, I don't know what MrSquicky meant, but I would say directly or indirectly.
And it might help if you explained what you mean by "economically neutral". Lots of countries participate in the global market without needing big armies or stepping on toes.
edit to add: Cross posted while you were giving examples. We hardly need a military this size to do those kinds of things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Could you explain what future dangers you see the Constitution being in where our military will be needed to defend against?
No, I can't. My crystal ball is broken. Just because we can't predict a fight doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready for one.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
Which Constitutional rights were those?
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
---
quote: Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
How is this relevant?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
Of course it is. Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
Hahaha what the heck are you talking about?
Soldiers, go get to work on habeas corpus and illegal wiretapping, and go find out what Gonzales was talking about when he revealed the existence of heretofore unknown spying programs the other day.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hoo boy. OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
If the government had sent nobody they would be ignoring what the constitution clearly mandates and the integrity of our peaceful society as outlined by that constitution would be seriously damaged. The constitution works because the government has muscle, i.e the military to make sure it is observed.
Though this didn't happen in your lifetime, at least I hope not Kennedy sending troops to enforce integration (desegregation?) was an excelent example of this.
National guard isn't exactly active-duty standing offensive-capability army.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I stand ready to defend motherhood and blueberry pie. (But not that icky apple stuff.) Now, I grant you that these are maybe not that much under attack at the moment; but that's because I stand ready to defend them. So think for a moment about motherhood and pie before you attack my morals. You're not against motherhood, are you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indirectly they have gone to hostile countries and fought. they have gone to troubled regions to bring stability. Not all those missions were successful, but they went all the same. They have done this in your life time and more then once if you are over the age of 20. If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
MrSquicky I can't make you understand that. If you can't see the sacrifice or understand how they protect your freedoms, your rights, and your liberties if they are fighting or not, then I am not sure we can even talk rationally about something like this.
Think of each soldier in peace as being a fence, it really does nothing but keep honest people honest, but it does help. It helps protect by just being there.
Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Soldiers, go get to work on habeas corpus and illegal wiretapping, and go find out what Gonzales was talking about when he revealed the existence of heretofore unknown spying programs the other day.
Not really what the soldiers are for. If they were directed to, they could. But that is what the FBI and CIA are for. Also, that is what elected officials are for.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Personally, I stand ready to defend motherhood and blueberry pie. (But not that icky apple stuff.) Now, I grant you that these are maybe not that much under attack at the moment; but that's because I stand ready to defend them. So think for a moment about motherhood and pie before you attack my morals. You're not against motherhood, are you?
meanwhile the chef is embezzling tons of whipped cream and you can't do anything about it. Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, for all the complaining Europe and the rest of the world do about our military, I think at the end of the day most of them are greatful that they don't have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have when we'll do it for them. Even so, there's a bit of an arms race building up in Europe and Asia right now, you just don't see it talked about a lot. India is buying and building thousands of tanks from Russia, Britain, Italy and France are increasing the size of their navies, China has increased military spending at a higher percentage than any nation on earth, upgrading all areas of their forces at the same time.
The whole thing snowballs after awhile. China wants to be a superpower, so they build up. India wants the ability to fight them off, so they build up, and Pakistan is afraid of India so they build up. Japan and South Korea are both afraid of China and North Korea, so they get twitchy and build up too. Meanwhile everyone on the other side of the planet gets nervous and doesn't want to count on the US to be their Big Stick anymore, so they build up, though slowly, as well. The most visible buildup I see in Europe is an old fashioned navy buildup. France, Italy and GB are all building new and more aircraft carriers, which in military parlance is the single most expensive and aggressive offensive tool in a nation's arsenal (per unit, obviously nukes are more destructive, just not as expensive per unit, and for that matter have no finesse).
But I think you have to look at the US force more focused than just one big buildup. We powered down big time after WWII, and it cost us a lot to ramp back up for Korea, and the same thing with Vietnam, with Gulf War I, and now huge expenditures for Gulf War II. We have a history of disarming after a major conflict only to spend a lot of money to rearm for the next one. The prevailing thought is that we should cut costs where we can, but not limit our strategic options, less we be caught off guard. The Cold War might have ended 20 years ago, but the world didn't necessarily become a safer place. If anything, it might only have become more dangerous. We understood the Russians, they were a centralized power that we could focus on, we knew where they were, and we were good at spying on them and staying two or three steps ahead.
Now the threat is from 100 different angles, we don't understand them at all, and we don't know how they think or where they are. It's perhaps a much more dangerous world, and while someone like Rumsfeld would tell you that we don't need tanks to fight terorrists, the fact of the matter is that Russia isn't gone, just sleeping while they figure out what kind of nation they want to be, and China is perhaps our biggest future threat, regardless of the money we make off each other, that isn't a static relationship, and money isn't a safety shield against war (France was Germany's biggest trading partner prior to WWI). So we need a small agile force to fight terrorists, a huge intelligence apparatus, and we still need those tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter jets that traditionally fight big land and air powers. If Europe decided to step up in a big way and bolster the force of the West, then things would be different, but Europe is quite content to let itself be a very loud neighbor that doesn't really seem willing to do anything concrete, and while that remains the status quo, don't expect things to change much over here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Indirectly they have gone to hostile countries and fought. they have gone to troubled regions to bring stability. Not all those missions were successful, but they went all the same. They have done this in your life time and more then once if you are over the age of 20. If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
Are you seriously saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was threatening the US? (HOW WAS IRAQ THREATENING THE US CONSTITUTION?)
If so, what exactly, do you think the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
What countries are these that actually threaten our nation? How could they force us to their way of life?
How did 9/11 threaten our way of life or the Constitution, other than by our leaders' reaction to it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Does Norway have a similar cultural quirk? Can you even name a state that has something identical to a Mormon missionary?
Eh? You asserted that being a missionary is more important than joining the military.
That is not what I am trying to say. I'm saying that because that obligation exists many men in Utah who are of the prime age to be recruited simply choose not to spare another 4 years and commence college at the age of 25.
And because of the perceived obligation to go to college, many young men elsewhere likewise choose not to join. How is that any different? The point is: Here are these young men, who presumably support (by and large) the war in Iraq, who are choosing not to join up, in larger numbers than their counterparts elsewhere. Instead they go off to be missionaries. In other words, they consider missionary work more important than the military. In other places, people consider college more important. What is the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it might help if you explained what you mean by "economically neutral". Lots of countries participate in the global market without needing big armies or stepping on toes.
The US does not do business in a neutral manner, we don't do business with whoever has money. Right after the revolutionary war, Great Britain and France said we could not trade with the other, they both started abducting our sailors and sinking our ships. Instead of saying, fine we won't trade with either or we insist on trading with both we tried to trade with Great Britian (the bigger trading partner) and pissed off France (our ally.)
In WWI, Germany did not want us trading with Great Britain, and vice versa. We declared our neutrality in the conflict and promptly sold arms/supplies to Great Britain. We did not sell them nor were we willing to sell them to the same degree to Germany. The Germans started sinking British cargo vessels that smuggled the US made supplies in and killed some Americans, we entered WW1.
WW2 we stopped selling oil to Japan and blockaded their ports so that we could pressure them into ceasing their invasion of South East Asia. If we were neutral as we said we were, we would sell arms/supplies to both axis and allies or refuse to sell to either.
If we were truly economically neutral we would go where the money is, which is what China does. We wouldn't sell arms to just Israel, we'd sell them to Palestinians. We would do business with Cuba. Switzerland is more of an economically neutral country, it is also neutral politically.
The US says, "What they are doing is wrong and we won't do business with them." That is not economically neutral.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ANY invading force that may or may not be out there. ANY entity that would have the balls to attack the US.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11.
Specifically, explain this sentence.
1. Who is "out there" threatening our nation's constitution? How are they a threat to it? 2. Why do you say they "want to force us to their way of life"? Who is that? What way of life is that, why do they want to force us to it? Why does this have nothing to do with our foreign policy? 3. How is 9/11 connected to a plot to "force us to their way of life"? 4. How would an event such as 9/11 "force us to" change our way of lives at all? What is your evidence of this happening?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
No. They haven't been. They may be being sold as defending our ideals but that isn't necessarily the case.
And they aren't just a fence. They are are a fence that needs to be supported and maintained. And to justify that support, they need to be used. We need to find things for them to do. People who have a financial interest in supporting a large army - contractors, suppliers, arms manufacturers etc. - have an interest in making sure that the army isn't just passively ready.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: My best guess is that we don't have moral obligations for any of those things, and that we don't have moral obligations to be soldiers either. I think our actual moral obligation is to take the gifts we personally have been given and use them to the best of our abilities to serve whatever we believe the greater good to be. Perhaps for some in some situations that may mean fighting in wars. For others it probably means entirely different professions.
Exactly what I've been trying to get at.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
And if you could how this is instead of jsut declaring it and other superficial platitudes, I might agree with you.
I doubt anyone here who has reda my posts in regards to our military thinks I do anything but support and honor our troops, but I don't believe in short-circuiting discussion of their role with superficial inanities.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan. That country was run by Al Qaeda. They funded and planed those attacks and now they are no longer in power. Iraq is a whole different issue. Iraq has other issues, and it is also an issue of being responsible for our own meddling.
There are reasons that are deep in every battle we have fought since the days George took his men with no boots through the snow. You just have to open your eyes long enough to look. Also stop trying to pick a fight, fighting over opinions is not productive at all.
The beautiful thing about opinions they are not right or wrong. While they can change they seem to grow stronger the harder they are hit, but they can flow when they are treated a bit softer.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And because of the perceived obligation to go to college, many young men elsewhere likewise choose not to join. How is that any different? The point is: Here are these young men, who presumably support (by and large) the war in Iraq, who are choosing not to join up, in larger numbers than their counterparts elsewhere. Instead they go off to be missionaries. In other words, they consider missionary work more important than the military. In other places, people consider college more important. What is the difference?
Because the statistics used to demonstrate red Utah's "lack of support" were total numbers of veterens. In peace time are you arguing that if you support our military you should still become a veteran? We don't have numbers for how many people by state enlisted when our invasion of Iraq took place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Those aren't actually Constitutionally protected rights, you know. But they did protect the right to equal treatment before the law.
But again, I wasn't alive then and I don't consider that a military action as I said I was explicitly talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Those aren't actually Constitutionally protected rights, you know. But they did protect the right to equal treatment before the law.
But again, I wasn't alive then and I don't consider that a military action as I said I was explicitly talking about.
OK then how about the invasion of Afghanistan, a place where terrorists planned and executed attacks on Americans from?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
BlackBlade, the national guard is not the same (or at least should not be the same) as the standing army that is used for offensive action.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
BlackBlade, the national guard is not the same (or at least should not be the same) as the standing army that is used for offensive action.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Kennedy sending troops to enforce integration (desegregation?) was an excelent example of this.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
