War sucks. There is no debate about that. Period.
That’s why it should be the last resort. I don’t think you’ll find disagreement there, either.
We can start a thread about “What kind of personality is drawn to political power?”. 
Ordering soldiers into harms way is a sobering responsibilty. Or, at least, it aught to be…
I hear what you are saying and I dislike it. I appreciate, in a way, what you are saying or that you are trying to reason with me. But my whole point is there is a very fine line between trying to be reasonable and simply excusing immoral behavior.
I think that from Japan’s point of view the attack fit von Clausewitz’s statement about war perfectly: politics by other means.
Ok, Mr. Iraqi Business owner. Your shop was apparently destroyed in a firefight between, I assume, US Soldiers of some stripe, and insurgents.
Why is the blame on the US Soldier, and not the insurgents, who are in violation of Iraqi law, and attempting to kill people?
Why is the blame on the US Soldier, and not the Iraqi government who has allowed (for whatever reasons) the US Soldiers to be in their country?
Why is the blame on the US Soldier, who may have joined specifically to go fight in Iraq, or may have been a National Guard member who joined in 1998 and never intended to spend a year with hostile folks trying to blow him up, and not on the US Government who authorized an open ended mission in Iraq?
What is the difference between someone who joined the Army in 1942, 1970, 1991 and 2005?
It sucks that the shop owner had his business destroyed. I can see why he would blame the US Soldier. But I also see where there is plenty of blame to go around.
In a perfect world, we would have knocked down the Hussein government, installed a provisional government, spent a year or two helping rebuild infrastructure while moving responsibilities to the local government. They hold an election, and we go home. In, out, done. Similar to Japan, Germany and Korea (but without the Cold War to keep our guys in place).
Sadly, that is not how it turned out, which sucks for everyone. But I fail to see what makes the US soldier evil, in this instance.
Well I agree of course that is a very valid line of questioning
Who defines what “legitimate” is though? That, right there, is the key question, and everything else is trying to figure that one out.
Mlees makes some very salient points in his post #57 that underline the basis for warmaking. Right or wrong, people in high places with the big picture and someone’s (maybe misplaced, buth nevertheless) best interests in mind are going be doing the warmaking. It gets a bit out of control after the shooting starts. You want to be the one calling the shots or the one getting shot at?
A big powerful military makes eveyone on my side better off before, during and after.
Well, America’s complicated internal political structure probably doesn’t matter one bit to the vast majority of American military recruits, who are looking for a job, finance for college, a bit of challenge/adventure… and yet you’re calling them immoral - no grey to it whatsoever.
You are just making excuses. No matter how complicated the extenuating circumstances are, the people who actually shot up his business have to be held accountable.
Well, yes, but it should matter to them. That is in fact my whole argument, in it’s entirety.
Robert163
Why do you put Korea in your list? What do you think that was all about?
And can you tell us what year you are? It’s been asked more than once. Freshman? Sophomore?
Bah. 11 December. What a noob. :smack:
Does that include the insurgents, or just the US Soldiers?
You “dislike” it? What does that even mean?
I’m trying to hold a reasonable debate in which we both make intelligent points. I’m afraid responses that simply say “I don’t like what you’re saying” fall well short of the mark.
If you find any opposition to your proposed debate to be “excusing immoral behavior,” it seems you aren’t able to put together a very reasoned or rational case for your view, and you’d rather imply that anyone who doesn’t see things your way is a bad person. You really want this thread to degenerate into a carefully-worded name-calling contest?
I believe that is something a person inclined of a scurrilous temperament might possibly consider a less-than-negative outcome, suh!
Perhaps “I believe” is too strong a phrase, on reflection. Instead, circumstances might motivate me to seriously consider the possibility!
Suh!
I’m simply saying there is no moral equivocation here. My frustration is that the “it’s a complex issue” side of the debate is exactly the type of reasoning that lets people get away with their immoral, wrong, behavior. I repeat the example of a business owner how had their business destroyed by gun fire. Do you really think he wants to hear about the complicated reasons?
**I am not going to be able to respond to this thread for several hours. Not that I am trying to be stuck up or arrogant, just if I miss any responses don’t think that I have ignored you. I know it can be frustrating if you make a point and the other person doesn’t reply. **
That doesn’t seem relevant to the issue of morality. We agree that the invasion of Grenada was unjustified but it was carried out by a small amount of troops. And we agree that World War II was justified and that war required a much larger army then we have now. So there seems to be no clear connection between the size of the armed forces and the morality of their mission.
And I also feel that this is side-stepping the topic of this thread. The topic is whether it’s moral for an individual to join the military. I don’t see how anyone can make an argument that it’s moral or immoral based on the size of the military you’re joining. That leads to the unlikely idea that it might be moral to join the Marines but immoral to join the Army.
Do soldiers get credit for civilian lives they’ve saved?