Those who Claim People in the Military are Fighting for our Freedom/Defending Us

[Mormolyce]

It's people like the OP that makes me wish we have mandatory service commitments like some other countries. I've been in the military for 13+ years and while it's not all glory and air medals, I'm thankful for what our current and past vets have done for us. Learn some respect.

You want to fight alongside people who don't respect your institution or its goals and don't want to be there?

[Deleted]

You want to fight alongside people who don't respect your institution or its goals and don't want to be there?

No, I think walking a mile in their shoes would change their minds.

[Ethas]

Fighting terrorists in some countries while supporting them in others is not a fight aimed at freedom and world stability for sure.

[Skroe]

Are you just posting this to insult serving members of the forces or veterans that visit this forum?

This.

Also the OP defines defense far too narrowly too. He may define defense that narrowly. Our enemies don't. Defending our interests is defense of the country. They are one and the same.

---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:28 AM ----------

Fighting terrorists in some countries while supporting them in others is not a fight aimed at freedom and world stability for sure.

So you regret our funding of the Afghan Mujihadeen which broke the back of the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s, delivering upon the USSR a gangrenous wound that made Vietnam look like a mere slap to the face?

The consistency you seek is unrealistic and also undesirable. Every situation is different. If the goal of the Grand Strategy requires internal contradictions, that's entirely acceptable.

[Ovacor]

Soldiers fight for what they believe it. Even if they are often mislead by their superiors, they still believe that they're fighting for their country. I cannot say I support the war, and I cannot say I support ALL of the soldiers. I have had far too many people who I know join the Marines because, "they want to kill some sand monkeys". Though I can say that I fully support anyone who fights for what they believe in.

[soulcrusher]

So you regret our funding of the Afghan Mujihadeen which broke the back of the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s, delivering upon the USSR a gangrenous wound that made Vietnam look like a mere slap to the face? .

and then the West go and make the same mistake just like the Russians did? Id guess he's talking about arming the al queada jihadist terrorists in Syria whilst killing them elsewhere. The operations in Mali and Algeria are a direct result of meddling in Libya. Iraq is now a largely broken dysfunctional country and so on.

[artemishunter1]

Again, this is just /so/ much easier than drilling more here.

Yes. Far more easy. You do not have to deal with environmental regulation, law suits will never happen, huge surplus of workers to exploit. The cost of doing business is not even beared by your company but the gov't whose officials you have bought already. So, why the hell do anyone think it is cheaper to drill oil here? Seriously, can anyone explain this to me?

[Labruja]

Let me answer this for you; Yes.

Whatever your opinions and views are, generally people who serve in the Military are good, honest people who want to do nothing more to serve their country in one of the most dangerous, and courageous ways possible. To hate people who are in the Military, on the basis that they advocate war is childish and pathetic.

Like it or not, we live in a world where everyone has a big stick. I'm not going to put mine down until everyone else does!

I don't think the OP was bashing the people who serve in the military at all. I think he's referring to what lies behind them being in foreign countries, which is a Government decision they have no part in. None of us have any way of knowing the real reason they are there, but I'm quite as sure as he is that it is not a 'war on terrorism'. Oil may be a large part of the reason, but there is probably a lot more to it - strategic positioning being one possible reason.

[Kavoo]

Taking it would be too obvious. You just have to install corrupt puppet regimes that take bribes and sell their countries riches for a fraction of their value.

Brazil says hi. Guess what, we found tons of oil in our coast.

[artemishunter1]

This.

Also the OP defines defense far too narrowly too. He may define defense that narrowly. Our enemies don't. Defending our interests is defense of the country. They are one and the same.

---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:28 AM ----------



So you regret our funding of the Afghan Mujihadeen which broke the back of the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s, delivering upon the USSR a gangrenous wound that made Vietnam look like a mere slap to the face?

The consistency you seek is unrealistic and also undesirable. Every situation is different. If the goal of the Grand Strategy requires internal contradictions, that's entirely acceptable.

This is acceptable in grey and grey world. But acknowledging this, you truly must get the urge to beat people in the head, when they claim we are moraly superior and we fight for Justice, Freedom and other vaguely defined virtue. Having blood on our hands maybe necessary for our greater good, but its pretending to be morally superior to those we fight is just bulshit.

[Elemair]

You're saying that because it is a lot of money that we don't have to worry about it?

Are you saying that we don't pay interest on our loans currently?

If we have less debt, we pay less interest and therefore we have more money to spend on domestic costs.

The United States of America doesn't pay interest on this loan, they don't pay it back at all. I don't think you understand your economic situation. Even if you were to pay back a fraction of that loan, the amount of interest would be negligible. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRILLIONS, not billions, not millions, TRILLIONS. That amount of money is unimaginable, and unprecedented. Your domestic costs will never change, they will always stay the same. If you haven't realized this by now, the USA is continuously borrowing more money. If you follow this line of thought, even if you paid back 5 trillion dollars, you would still need to borrow 5 trillion more. The fact is, the USA can't collapse, or all world trade would collapse, and the amount of money you would lose in ~4 months of the stock market being down would be more than just trillions of dollars. You don't have to pay interest on your loans, you are the powerhouse that funds the economy of the world. You are the centre for all trade, all imports and exports enter through the US and spread to the rest of the world. The fact is, if you had to pay interest, the entire populace of your country working 9-5 every day would still not be able to pay of a fraction of 5% of your countries loan. The entire world will support you in any financial situation, you can continually keep borrowing more and more money and not have to worry about it. Everything is centralized in the USA, and if the USA goes down, then shit will hit the fan. China needs to keep you alive to keep itself alive at this point. If you think the loans you take from the bank, and the loan that the entire country of the USA has is the same, you are out of your mind. The loan the USA has accumulated is essentially the "World Loan", if the USA collapses, you will see a ripple affect, causing multiple countries to enter a state of depression and eventual financial collapse.

[Roose]

We are indeed on the same page now, Elanair. Not sure why I misunderstood you earlier.

I am hoping for a future where we all look at our police and military as peacekeepers, not soldiers. A cheesy notion, but one can hope.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm cheesy

[Austilias]

OP reminds me of the typical Leftist conspiracy theorist that are just so damn easy to dislike. If I had the physical health required of a soldier i'd happily do their job, and regarding why, Orwell summed it up quite succinctly;

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

[Darkangle]

Says the punk from Chicago that flips burgers for a living.

And you wonder why I thought that if I were to disclose my location you would try to use it as flaming instead of illustrating your point in a discussion. This just lost you your last shred of credibility, and I'm pretty sure that can get you banned.

---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 10:35 AM ----------

The United States of America doesn't pay interest on this loan, they don't pay it back at all. I don't think you understand your economic situation. Even if you were to pay back a fraction of that loan, the amount of interest would be negligible. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRILLIONS, not billions, not millions, TRILLIONS. That amount of money is unimaginable, and unprecedented. Your domestic costs will never change, they will always stay the same. If you haven't realized this by now, the USA is continuously borrowing more money. If you follow this line of thought, even if you paid back 5 trillion dollars, you would still need to borrow 5 trillion more. The fact is, the USA can't collapse, or all world trade would collapse, and the amount of money you would lose in ~4 months of the stock market being down would be more than just trillions of dollars. You don't have to pay interest on your loans, you are the powerhouse that funds the economy of the world. You are the centre for all trade, all imports and exports enter through the US and spread to the rest of the world. The fact is, if you had to pay interest, the entire populace of your country working 9-5 every day would still not be able to pay of a fraction of 5% of your countries loan. The entire world will support you in any financial situation, you can continually keep borrowing more and more money and not have to worry about it. Everything is centralized in the USA, and if the USA goes down, then shit will hit the fan. China needs to keep you alive to keep itself alive at this point. If you think the loans you take from the bank, and the loan that the entire country of the USA has is the same, you are out of your mind. The loan the USA has accumulated is essentially the "World Loan", if the USA collapses, you will see a ripple affect, causing multiple countries to enter a state of depression and eventual financial collapse.

Well said.

I stated that they were piss poor earlier, but since people seemed to wanna disprove that, I figured that it's not even worth explaining why. It's so obvious, yet they don't seem to realize it.

[Bosen]

It's a polite way to say that you appreciate and support the military troops, weather you agree with the policies that sent them there or not.

They go into dangerous situations believing that they're doing it for the good of the American people- that their cause is worth putting their lives on the line for. It's idealistic, and it's respect.

We all hope that the Government's agenda would be just, and that they would feel a bit of that respect for the troops themselves.

[Deleted]

I respect the soldiers who go to war. I don´t respect the current wars they are fighting or the bullshit politicians who started these wars.

[Boathouse]

This is very wrong to throw hate like that at soldiers. We signed up in hopes that we'd be doing the right thing, that we'd be defending our freedom and choice. Regardless of your view on the war, don't talk down to the soldiers.

"Soldiers should be respected based on what they do, not for being a soldier"

Do you not think us signing up was enough? The fact that if we DIDN'T sign up, they'd draft people like you? That if you chose against going after that you'd be imprisoned? Come now, you can at the very least be thankful that we sign up so you don't get forced into it.

[Deleted]

Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:46 am – 10:28 am

I suggest you go look up that date, Hang your head in shame, and apologize to all the service personnel that are on these forums.

Oh a country declared war upon USA and did this, did they?

So it wasnt just an organization that did it?

I suggest you hang your head in shame, and appologize to whatever immaginary country you just insulted.

[Stellalock]

Actually, they do, if you read them. Like the link I provided to the Shah of Iran:



The Democratically elected government nationalized their oil resources and prevented foreign interests from continuing to exploit their country, and thus, we overthrew their Democratically elected government and installed one more favorable to our oil interests.

This is one example. There are a lot more. It was done for oil, for money, for profit - at the expense of the sovereign population. These are not 'conspiracy theories', these are confirmed facts that have come to light many years later. It's NOT a secret that the US government has overthrown foreign governments for private sector profit. If you believe otherwise, it's because you choose to delude yourself.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 03:25 PM ----------




I already addressed this. What do YOU think the public reaction to forced drafting into military service in order to fight in Iran, Iraq, etc would be? Do you think the public reaction to such an action would be negligible?

Politicians are not at the point yet that they simply 'determine' what will be done with our lives, and if we choose NOT to join the military, they just flip the switch and send us to war unwillingly.

But didn't you use wikipedia as a reference? do you get all your information from reference sources that can be written by anyone including the likes of Jedward?

The contributions can be incorrect, deliberately altered or facts left out by accident, deliberately, whatever.

And i can say first hand that I don't serve Queen and Country for the money, it helps keep me in the Army, but I joined because it's all I've ever wanted to do, well, that and be a fluffer or astronaut.

Also remember, what a lot of people see is what the media chooses to show you, soldiers out on the ground see a very differnet picture, I was once begged not to leave Iraq after the war because the people of Basrah were scared that if we left like we did in the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein would once again return and punish the area. Other Iraqis no doubt wanted us gone ASAP.

I don't listen to the media, hyppie friends that tell me war is bad (no crap? war isn't a good thing? dam, and here i thought it was a way to bring countries together (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell)), people in the street campaigning against "the baby killers", despite never having left Sheffield they know everything that happened during our 7 years in Iraq, when they were 11, etc. I form my own opinion about why we are were we are.

Soldiers go where they are sent, most want to because we don't want to be the guy left behind when our friends go. It is, in general, what we signed up for. Even if we don't know the facts, that's not our job. Our job is to go, do the job, come home to our families for tea and medals and if necessary, pay the ultimate sacrifice.

I've seen that the OP changed how he worded things in his first post as an attack on policies rather than the military, so fair play mate.

And whomever it was that said militaried are used to opress, please, differentiate between the militaries of developed countries with democracy and undeveloped or dictatorships. The British Army have only been on it's own streets to combat terrorism from both sides in Northern Ireland and in case you didn't know, we don't do that anymore and I doubt anyone would want us to again. It's a different mentality in the soldiers these days because of what has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one would want these soldiers doing that job ever again. The only other time you see British troops on British streets outside of parades is to cover for fire fighter strikes and relieve disasters such as mass flooding.

[Annapolis]

The United States of America doesn't pay interest on this loan, they don't pay it back at all...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/econ...lars-go-654971

When you decide to make things up it's better to pick things that can't be so easily disproven. 6 cents of every dollar we spend is spent on paying the interest of our loans. That is a fact. We pay interest on our loans. You can't demand money from other countries and not pay them interest on the loan. Pretty simple economics.

The world economy or American economy is not on the verge of collapse. And there's really no amount we can barrow that will cause such a thing to happen. But that's not what I'm saying. You claimed it just wasn't an issue. Democrats and Republicans both recognize the debt is a problem. You saying that it is trillions of dollars is not news to anybody who has watched the news ever. The debt is a problem because it takes away from our actual spending every year. How is that not an issue? If that causes us to not be able to balance the budget, we borrow more, then need to borrow more the next year etc.

The reason you don't hear about ways to fix the debt isn't because it doesn't need to be done. It's because to do it you need to raise taxes and Americans don't want to raise taxes on something that doesn't add to programs. Getting rid of the debt will increase the value of the dollar and help stabilize the economy. In recessions it isn't really beneficial to tackle the debt, but outside of recessions it is and presidents have reduced it in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...es_public_debt.

It seems like you're getting your information from how you feel rather than facts. We do pay interest on loans like everyone else. The debt is a problem. Congress and presidents have worked the reduce the debt in the past. Spreading misinformation is bad.