• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not? (1 Viewer)

Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?


  • Total voters
    18

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.
 
It's a really damn good question, and I'll be honest that I'm not positive where I come down.


Generally, my instinct is to say that the way we treat the fallen is sacrosanct, and should transcend politics.
 
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

It's never acceptable but you can't make the bastards stop it. Politicos love to visit troops, especially overseas, and they love to have their picture taken with troops so that they can use the hell out of their "support the troops" image. The vast majority never liked the military enough to sign up, however. That's real service to their country and politicians want no part of that.
 
Last edited:
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.
My preference would be for a service member's death to never be used for political gain.


Their death should be only used to further their life or their cause - otherwise it should respected by being left in peace.

JMHO.
 
If it is used to fight for a cause the deceased service member would want it if ok. If it goes against then it is not ok. Whether or not I agree with the cause is irrelevant.
 
It depends.

If you're a member of a group who served and a candidate is always demonizing that group, I don't think it should be wrong to stand up and say to that candidate "hey, ***hole, [explanation]"
 
Who's using the history military service to service their political agenda?

Is it the person who done it, or their family?

:?:
 
It's never acceptable but you can't make the bastards stop it. Politicos love to visit troops, especially overseas, and they love to have their picture taken with troops so that they can use the hell out of their "support the troops" image. The vast majority never liked the military enough to sign up, however. That's real service to their country and politicians want no part of that.
The bolded is exactly it!

If Trump or even one of his kids grabbed a rifle and fought amongst those that willingly put their lives on the line perhaps even experiencing losing a brother, I highly suspect he would have approached this Khan incident quite a bit differently.
 
If it is used to fight for a cause the deceased service member would want it if ok. If it goes against then it is not ok. Whether or not I agree with the cause is irrelevant.

Politicians don't know the difference. Few even give a damn.

Hell will freeze over before Washington ever respects Pat Tillman enough to complete and report an honest and fair investigation of his death AND the coverup that took place.
 
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

Why just limit to military service? Pols use tragedy all the time to make an emotional appeal. I dont have a problem with it when the person actually cares, as opposed to just using it as a tool. Trump and Hillary dont really care about the tragedies they exploit.
 
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

Service members KIA are to be treated as heroes, and not used by any person for any political or personal gain whatsoever.

Political gain, as well as personal gain of those still alive - It's completely fine if it's your own military service. It is not okay at all, IMHO, if it's someone else's service, even your spouse, or child, or parent. The only exception to either alive or dead would be where a child of a MoH recipient that gets automatic admittance to a service academy.
 
Last edited:
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

Acts of courage and ultimate sacrifice should be honored.

Acts of dishonor, perfidy or cowardice should be discussed in a rational manner.

Politicians should just shut up.
 
Politicians don't know the difference. Few even give a damn.

Hell will freeze over before Washington ever respects Pat Tillman enough to complete and report an honest and fair investigation of his death AND the coverup that took place.

I agree. If a politician is going to invoke the name of a deceased service member, or activist, or anyone really, to push an agenda they should at least get the blessing from the deceased's closest family.
 
Who's using the history military service to service their political agenda?

Is it the person who done it, or their family?

:?:

Whether that matters depends on the circumstances, I'd say.
 
It's never acceptable but you can't make the bastards stop it.

Don't fully agree.


For example, if someone attacked McCain's character to say he is dishonorable, I think it would be absolutely appropriate for someone to respond by pointing out that he refused to cooperate with the VC and chose to stay with his men through years of brutal torture. That's the pinnacle of honor, duty, and strength.

In this situation, it would not be McCain or his defender who was in the wrong (for referring to the military service/deeds). It would be the person who attacked him.
 
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

There's nothing wrong with using your own military service. The problem, in my view, is when you use the death of a loved one to peddle your own personal politics. That's crass, in my view, and does a disservice to the fallen soldier.
 
Service members KIA are to be treated as heroes, and not used by any person for any political or personal gain whatsoever. Political gain, as well as personal gain of those still alive - It's completely fine if it's your own military service. It is not okay at all, IMHO, if it's someone else's service, even your spouse, or child, or parent. The only exception to either alive or dead would be where a child of a MoH recipient that gets automatic admittance to a service academy.

It's alright by me for those who actually lost the service member to remind those who never spent a day in a uniform what that dead service member meant to them. The dead can't 'use' their service- only the living- to what end it is used is where the Devil lives.

We didn't seem to have much of a problem 'using' the fallen from WWII in politics, and self stroking by the millions who didn't serve. We seem to wrap ourselves up in their heroic deeds when spouting off about how great a nation we are.

I'm ok with the Khans- they are a sharp and now effective reminder to those who stir the pot of bigotry what can be the bitter by product of that hate... :peace
 
I propose that the next time the rich political class starts a war, we line up 20-30 of their kids, and then ask the rich political azzholes which one of their kids are to be shot first before we begin the war. The poor have been killed in place of the rich way too often by way of deferments, political strings, political favors, etc. etc. etc.
 
Jesus, I thought that this Gold Star Parent stuff ended with Vietnam.

Guess I was wrong.

Losing a loved one to a idiotic war does not make one either heroic or smart. It makes one a victim, but then again almost all of us were victims in that war. In victim culture this gives one more right to talk, but then again I am militantly hostile towards victim culture. Those who served doing warrioring well (this is a requirement for me, because a lot of soldiers and officers actually suck), them I will listen to and respect, there should always be a bar stool and a lectern for the heros.

But for victims? They are a dime a dozen, they can go Cattle Class so far as I am concerned.
 
There's nothing wrong with using your own military service. The problem, in my view, is when you use the death of a loved one to peddle your own personal politics. That's crass, in my view, and does a disservice to the fallen soldier.
I agree with this as written, but as far as the Khans go I have no issue with what they've done. Trump called out Muslims as a blanket statement, and as such called out him even if not by name, and they responded with a, "Hey, wait a minute...". They were reactive, not proactive. They were defending their son's honor.
 
I don't think it's any worse than all the other tragedies and personal situations politicians use for their personal gain.
 
Of course it's acceptable. In Israel many of our prime ministers were commanders or generals.
 
Is using military service for political gain acceptable or not?

I'm talking specifically when a service member dies in service to their country and political leader wannabes use it for their political gain. This question is prompted by recent discussions re Trump and the Khan family, but is intended as a generic topic.

Part of me has to ask: Why would it be bad?

No one seems to complain when the flag is waived and the person and/or their sacrifice is used in a patriotic manner. So, if that's acceptable, why not the reverse?

I think it's an extremely nuanced and complicated subject. In a purely sterile atmosphere, if it's acceptable for one it's acceptable for both, and visa versa. Theoretically, that's the proper way to think about it. But emotions run high on this one.

Depends.
To use it as an example of qualification, I can see it, but not alone as a total package.
"I was a good leader in the (insert military branch), I can be a good leader in (x political position).

To use the military dead as a shield from criticism, is moral bankruptcy.

I'm highly suspicious of those who use "support the military" as part of their pr and campaign strategy.

I'm not particularly fond of the general military worship that tends to pervade our world either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom