CSflim

I guess it all comes down to a single question:

If someone carries out orders, are they morally responsible for their actions?

If you believe that they are not, it makes sense to say that you "support the troops", even though you are against the war.

If you take the (in my opinion more reasonable) opinion that people are morally responsible for their actions, even if they are carried out under orders, then it seems to me that it becomes impossible for you to claim to be against what these guys are doing, while at the same time saying that you support them. Without the soldiers doing what they are doing, the war would be impossible. As such they are personally guilty of any crimes that are committed in the name of war.

At the risk of being perceived* as "Godwinning" the thread, allow me to use an example:

"Of course I don't think that the genocide of 6 millions Jews was a good thing. I don't support that, but the guys in the gas chambers; they were only doing their job, so I support the gas chamber attendants"

That being said it is perfectly acceptable to say that you don't believe that what American troops are doing in Iraq is right, but that at the same time you do not wish any harm on them, and that you hope that as many as possible of them return home safely. This in my eyes is not really the same thing as "supporting" them.


*Lest there be any argument, this is not a genuine Godwin: I did not compare an opponent to a Nazi. Nor did I claim that what America is doing is in any way comparable to crimes committed by Nazi Germany. In fact I did not even make any statement regarding whether or not America's war in Iraq was justified (truth is, I am somewhat conflicted on this point). I was merely illustrating a purely philosophical point.

__________________