Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something I've thought about for quite sometime. Im sure many people will be "outraged" by me saying this, but isn't the whole saying "our soldiers are fighting/dying for our freedom" not really an accurate sentiment? I mean, come on, Iraq, Nam, Korea? None of these wars were fought for our "freedom".
Furthermore, it's been decades since we really fought for our freedom. I think WWII might have been the last time that we truly fought for our freedom.
And before WWII i can only think of two other wars, the Revolution (American) and the war of 1812.
I guess it's just a feel good sentiment. Am I way off base? What say you?
First...let me ask you about your perspective on WWII. It was a popular war and one that goes hand-in-hand with phrases like "the Greatest Generation." However, using your argument...most of WWII was also nothing more than fighting for Europe's freedom. Japan was attacked because they attacked us in Hawaii, so would you say that the soldiers who died in Europe are on the same level as those from Vietnam and only those who died in the Pacific did so for "our freedom"?
Now, perhaps I'm a little biased because my husband retired from the Air Force 2 years ago and I spent a lot of time working as a civilian with active duty military members. There is a certain "calling" that the vast majority of miltary members have. That's not "feel good" sentiment...that's reality. It's easy for those who don't know anything about the military to assume that it's just an organization for people who can't get a better job or who are "war mongers." I was one of those before I married my husband...going to a liberal college that focused more on how much the military wasted on toilet seats than examining the true reason the military is the strongest on earth. Equipment and machinery only go so far...you have to have people who use them. It saves us from a mandatory draft and from the requisite military duty that so many countries have for their young men.
The people I met in the military who made the military their career were well educated (most of them got their educations while serving active duty), patriotic (and not the trite "my country is better than your country and why aren't you wearing a flag pin on your lapel?") people who will go to a hell like Afghanistan when they're told.
If a threat existed on our border or between the states, they would head there too. They are willing to put their lives on the line trying to find and kill a would-be terrorist who wants to kill as many of us as possible. Perhaps it doesn't fit the exact definition of "fighting for our freedoms" because it seems like Afghanistan or Iraq is so far away and the way the media (who doesn't think the War on Terrorism is legitimate) like to portray the war as a never-ending waste of time, but I have to ask you...when a spouse or family member of someone killed in a foreign country that they were sent to because the military decided it was their time to deploy, comes home in a body bag...how would you describe their ultimate sacrifice? "Well, Ms. Smith. Sorry your son was killed, but he was trying to help a barely legitimate, corrupt government protect their old fields to we can continue our never-ending thirst for a waning resource?" If we could go back in time and send a military unit to take out the 9-11 plane bombers while they met in Saudi Arabia before heading to the US for their flight training programs, and a US soldier died in the firefight...does he get to be considered "dying for our freedoms"?
Some wars or occupations have underlying reasons that do not have to do with fighting for our freedom.A country like Iraq has resources and some of the reason for us being there now and in the long future
I respect any soldier. But the trrops in Iraq and afganistan are doing little to protect us here, You see we are still sitting ducks with wide open borders..
I respect any soldier. But the trrops in Iraq and afganistan are doing little to protect us here, You see we are still sitting ducks with wide open borders..
But that's not the soldier's choice. The soldiers go where they're told by those in charge. If the leadership told them to head to the borders, they'd do that. Don't blame the workerbees for the mistakes of those in charge.
I proposed the question, you have to answer it if you feel different. Once you do that, i'll give a retort. That's how it works.
You will not expect me, nor will I fight someone's WAR for their political/financial gain. The wars that we have fought since WWII have nothing to do with our freedom. If im wrong, prove it. That's what im asking
someone elses war? when the USA does war it is the entire countries war, not 1 individuals war.
as far as proving it, why not ask the politicians, they are the ones giving the orders, the soldiers have nothing to do with war except for fighting, spilling their blood and dying.
This is something I've thought about for quite sometime. Im sure many people will be "outraged" by me saying this, but isn't the whole saying "our soldiers are fighting/dying for our freedom" not really an accurate sentiment? I mean, come on, Iraq, Nam, Korea? None of these wars were fought for our "freedom".
Furthermore, it's been decades since we really fought for our freedom. I think WWII might have been the last time that we truly fought for our freedom.
And before WWII i can only think of two other wars, the Revolution (American) and the war of 1812.
I guess it's just a feel good sentiment. Am I way off base? What say you?
I say you are 100% correct and that they also buy into this "they hate us for our freedom" crap. Just nuts.
This is something I've thought about for quite sometime. Im sure many people will be "outraged" by me saying this, but isn't the whole saying "our soldiers are fighting/dying for our freedom" not really an accurate sentiment? I mean, come on, Iraq, Nam, Korea? None of these wars were fought for our "freedom".
Furthermore, it's been decades since we really fought for our freedom. I think WWII might have been the last time that we truly fought for our freedom.
And before WWII i can only think of two other wars, the Revolution (American) and the war of 1812.
I guess it's just a feel good sentiment. Am I way off base? What say you?
Any of the latest "wars" in the middle east....no they did not die for our freedom.
I say you are 100% correct and that they also buy into this "they hate us for our freedom" crap. Just nuts.
It's one more way to dumb down the argument. Fox loves to do this, and it's very dangerous. You don't solve anything when you make an extremely complicated situation simple.
I too feel strange about that. I did two tours in Vietnam and was almost shipped to the Gulf. I did 3 tours in Korea on the DMZ, none of them left me feeling I was defending "Our Freedom". I may have been defending Vietnams Freedom or Koreas Freedom but not Americas. As for 9/11 I can't connect it with Iraq or the Taliban.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
