Gonna get a lot of hate for this one, but..The only time we were attacked in my life time was when the twin towers were hit. But that was our fault. We butted our noses into a war that was not ours, we stabbed an ally in the back and took the side of the runt for the sake of politics. They attacked in retaliation. Call it terrorism if you will, I call it pay back. Should have taught people to mind their own business and not interfere with the politics of other nations. Instead of imposing our 'Merica ways on countries who are completely culturally different.
We are not the world police, it was not our job to "defend our country" by attacking theirs when we were never threatened to begin with.
If you joined the military to defend 'Merica by going over seas to fight, you do not get my respect. You are sheep who is buying into political bullshit.
See what happens if they tried to institute a draft again. These soldiers today fight because they choose to. They should be well aware that we have not had a legitimate war since Korea.
Nobody is making any of the soldiers do what they are doing. It is all by choice. Such a load of crap that they are fighting so that I do not have to. I have no issues with brown people.
---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 02:05 PM ----------
And the first Persian Gulf War was a just war of liberation.
Last edited by King Candy; 2013-02-07 at 08:28 PM.
9 out of 10 people agree that in a room full of 10 people one person will always disagree with the other 9.
There's a higher chance a soldier did something fantastic and respect worthy then those from most other jobs, but unless that's been made known there's no reason to treat them any better (or worse) then others. They do not automatically get reverance because of their job choice.
I know, have met, and have seen enough soldiers to know that they are not automatically honorable individuals who fight for their country just because they are in the military (that's not to say they are bad either of course). They go for personal reasons, often because it's a very readily available means of getting a decent pay.
Hmmmmm...... Stuff isn't black and white only. There are countless shades of grey in between.
Let's look at the two starting points...
Despise any military action, refuse to give any credit, or respect to soldiers = Black
Glorify, and lift soldiers above all else as saviors and super heroes, while they fight abroad without being attacked on home ground = White.
Both approaches are just flat out wrong.
I am a pacifist, I admit that. I will never wear a uniform. But this is my own personal decision for myself. I show respect where respect is due. I question and criticize where it's needed. My respect adjusts accordingly. I give more to soldiers who had no choice. Armies which are entirely made up by volunteers don't get that much. Because they chose that job. Their respect isn't any more deserved than the one for a nurse, a cop, a fireman, and the hell even the trash man, that comes and gets your garbage. The danger in the various jobs vary, yet it was the persons free choice.
Especially when you enter an army like the one from the USA in these times. It's safe to say that the chance for you, that you will end up in a combat situation is very high. Now on the contrary, let's say some guy from Switzerland joins the army, and ends up in combat. Then we have a case, where we can support that guy with all heart and emotion. He never expected to have to fight abroad. He never had to expect such. The risk was in favor of a peaceful service.
I do however not buy that easily into the "defending the country, and fighting for our freedom" reason. Especially not, if there is not a single enemy in sight with the capability to seriously attack you on your own turf..
I strongly believe that it's sole reason is big business. Take it for what it's worth, but those arms cost a shitload of money. Every war blows millions, if not billions out of the window. There is high interest in using those arms to make new arms. And the bigger the war, the more benefit for the population actually.. All in all, there are millions of jobs involved.
If you want to defend yourself rather properly, then it may as well be by starting to become likeable. I don't know. But no one really wants to attack Switzerland, or Liechtenstein. They pose no threat in the first place, and they don't piss anyone off on purpose. Or take Russia.. I am not aware that they are such a target nowadays anymore. They used to, while it's been the USSR.. Those days are gone, Russia managed to restore a reputation, one way or another.
Let's ignore Putin for now, since he's a douche bag against his own people. But for foreign relationships, all so called super powers manage to stay below the radar, unless they are too US friendly. The USA is the only super power that managed to piss off half the planet, ever since the Soviet Regime fell.
This does indicate that the USA's foreign policy fails, it fails because you cannot make policy with arms.
And to be precise. It would not fly with the US population either, but the media in the USA keeps that topic under the carpet.
If the message the population gets would be" They are pissed at us, because we constantly screw around with our armies all over the place" then the population would say STOP the military bullshit... Americans are after all not that different.. They too love peace and freedom.
Freedom is only secured if you don't have to worry about military actions against you.
It's just like in civil life. If you go around and randomly punch guys in the face, chances are that at some point the gang up against you, and beat the living shit out of you.... Same principle.
I mean, it is one thing if random people here and there see you as a bully. It's another thing if almost the entire planet see's you as that.
A smart person would start to think about that.
So Pearl Harbor was a threat, but I take it 9/11 wasn't?
While I will agree that some wars are more politically driven than nationally (Vietnam and Korean are very big examples of this), to state that the soldiers who lay their lives on the line do not fight for our freedoms is going way overboard. Either way, no matter what the circumstance of the war in question that our national forces are fighting, they are doing so VOLUNTARILY. Tell me, would you be willing to lay your life on the line to protect your country and your beliefs?
I didn't think so. That's why I respect our troops and our veterans. They made a choice that millions of us did not and would not make. They choose to risk the possibility of death for a nation they swear to protect, whether it be against terrorism, communism, socialism, or any other isms.
Think about that one a moment.
OP, I feel you, bro.
I kinda agree with the OP. They say they are fighting for their country and their freedom. Their country or their freedom is not in danger. They are fighting another countrys war, that has no impact on their country. (not when it comes to freedom and safety of their own country at least)
Sure, its nice that they help other countries, but I also want to facepalm when I hear those lines.
To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
I’m not that arrogant.
The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.
Let's compare... Pearl Harbor as an attack during war which raged for years already... A legitimate Army carried out an attack for strategic reasons against a military base of another country. one country attacked another..... So far for that....
9/11 was a Terror attack, carried out by terrorists which had no connection to any other countries army. They were not under order by any other military power, and the attack happened outside of any war.
Here we have the two differences. Those reflect perfectly the actions taken after 9/11. An alliance of almost countless countries provided everything from financial contribution to actively sent troops to Afghanistan to help to hunt down the terrorists.
The approval rate for the hunt of Al Qaeda across the planet was well above 90%... There were 130 something countries involved one way or another.
The tables turned when the USA turned it's back on that focus, and chose to invade Iraq, over non existent WMD's (which was clear before the invasion even started). Then the support crumbled.