No. The bombing is immoral. Regardless of your goal, the act is not changed. It may be necessary in order to accomplish what you intend, but to say it's moral is not logical.
It's willfull ignorance at best and dishonestly at worst.
Well, you also forgot to mention they were also trained by the CIA on how to fight a more powerful and well equipped army. They were given the tactics they used on us by the CIA.
Without France's Naval power, we would have been destroyed.
We should always support the troops as a whole. When individual troops do the wrong thing they should get rightfully punished, but we should not demonize a whole group. As a Vet it hurts in a very deep way when people have called me name like baby killer by people that disagree with the wars. Also a friend of many Vietnam Vets I know the lack of support they got on their return really **** them up.
This is a hell of a situation...but what to do ?
Life must be a lot more than a "bummer".
Are opportunities in short supply ?
Is the future bleak ?
Whose responsibly is ones happiness ?? (it cannot all be on the one man)...IMO.
Our government also has its job.
No. Again acts are separable things. Attempting the return Vietnam to the French was immoral. Rescuing Vietnamese boat people was moral.
Please define "unjust". Is it against international law? US law? A US soldier is required to by law to fight the wars declared by the US government.
Massacres are a different matter. The US has signed on and accept international law regarding the treatment of civililians and POW's. So a soldier told to shoot a POW or massacre a village is a completely different subject than answering his countries call to war.
Edit: Honestly if the soldier should break US law and not fight in a war than any civilians paying taxes to fund a war are equally at fault!
I don't understand your reply to my post. I posted: Again acts are separable things.Please explain.Forcing kids to go there and kill "the enemy". Is that moral?
I don't understand your reply to my post. I posted: Again acts are separable things.Please explain.
Paying taxes and shooting a gun are completely different acts, don't you think?
Sure...they don't advocate for it...they just vote in power people that use it and continue to fund it at massive levels.Especially considering the fact that taxpayers are in no way advocating for the military, whereas those who are in the military willfully join with implicit agreement of US foreign policy.
I'm not sure about that. A lot of times with no money shooting doesn't take place or at least at a much lower level. I think Henry David Thoreau was correct in not paying taxes as a form of protest to the Mexican-American War.
Sure...they don't advocate for it...they just vote in power people that use it and continue to fund it at massive levels.
I also disagree with the implicit agreement of US foreign policy. I think in general a lot of people join for different reasons but I don't think the agreement of US foreign policy is any stronger with soldiers than it is with tax payers/voters that make the decisions that soldiers follow through with.
Then I'd go to jail. I don't like that option.
I vote for no such person. In fact, I don't vote.
How do you figure? Taxpayers are coerced into paying for it. Soldiers VOLUNTEER to join the organization that is responsible for the actions.
Using a hypothetical example. Soldier A decides to join the military to pay for school. He would prefer serving in the military than working at some crappy job to save up money over a couple of years or taking out student loans. So you're saying that if he joins for that reason...he support US foreign policy. He should change his plan in protest of US foreign policy.
You on the other hand are absolved from any moral guilt since you decide to pay taxes or go to jail...even though it is funding those same wars you disagree with.
I believe both are pretty rational decisions and have nothing to do with support of US foreign policy but I think if somone joining the war for plenty of reasons is automatically supportive of US foreign policy with that decision I believe anybody that pays taxes does as well.
Yes. If you join a company, you know what your job is. That's like saying (though it's not perfectly comparable) that a guy who starts dealing drugs to pay for school is blameless. In both cases, you know what you're getting into. It doesn't matter your rationale if the job you perform is immoral.
?
You could move to a country that doesn't support the war. You seem to really expect a lot from others and virtually nothing from yourself. So the soldier that has put in say 14 years and needs 6 years until retirement should drop out of the armed forces...anything less is immoral even if it meant losing everything he's worked 14 years for?I wouldn't go to jail if I don't join the military. I go to jail if I don't pay taxes. Huge difference.
Are we going to say that the person who goes into a company that deals weapons to foreign dictators is absolved from the actions of that company?
Public/civil service is different. The better comparison would be joining the police force even though you don't believe in the drug war or that drugs should be illegal. Your job is to enforce all laws that the government passes. That's what it's like when your job is to represent the will of the people. Society couldn't operate if police officers decided what laws to enforce or soldiers decided what wars to fight. That's kind of the heart of the issue. You can believe in serving in either capacity outside of what your representative government asks you to do. That's no immoral.
You could move to a country that doesn't support the war. You seem to really expect a lot from others and virtually nothing from yourself. So the soldier that has put in say 14 years and needs 6 years until retirement should drop out of the armed forces...anything less is immoral even if it meant losing everything he's worked 14 years for?
The guy that needs money for college...he better suck it up and just take student loans. How about the person that joins because they believe in things like the US armed forces and it's role to serve the will of the people. Hey buddy, change your goals in life.
I just don't see private profit making ventures in the same light as something like civil service. The reasons for joining generally differ.
The police officer is also immoral for enforcing unjust laws.
.
Yeah you really have to use some crazy logical twisting to view everyone on the other side of this conflict as innocents. Taliban? The Iraqi Republican Guard? The ruling Iraqi Regime? Insurgents that have targeted and killed (on purpose) more Iraqi civilians than American soldiers? I could agree pre-emptive war wrong but to claim everyone on the otherside of the conflict is innocent is just not true.If it requires killing innocents then it's immoral.
Those property rights depend on having a police force to enforce those property roles and a US government that is soveriegn in order to protect those rights against other governments.And why should I have to move from my property? I own my property, do I not?
I would disagree with you. Do you believe the USSR wasn't a threat? Do you think some of the regimes we went against weren't a threat? We're definately not batting a 100% but you've reduced 50 years of diplomacy into a simple caricture. Just like your simple caricture of the role of law enforcement or soldiers supposedly should operate.But the aggression of the US military has been blatant for at least 50 years
Sure using some boiled down reduced to black and white carictures of what joining law enforcement or the military means.And in the end you know what you are working for when you join.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?