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

[Purlina]

I loved that I joined the military cause people like you. Small people in this world who hide behind their computer and can't defend themselves, their family, or make an effort to change a country for the better.

Yes, because only by joining the military can you make a country better?

[Deleted]

Just a day ago there was a thread where Afghanistan was shown before the superpowers decided to start smaking it, which you even posted on. Now you´re sweping this crap?

Care to post the link? I genuinely do not remember doing this, I cannot blame the booze either as I have not drank for a month now.

Edit: I checked my post history for the last week, I took part in no such conversation.

[Sarnaxxx]

How many of said situations occur BECAUSE we have established this global military empire? Or do we not want to think about that possibility? If we stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, maybe they wouldn't have a reason to bomb us? Maybe if we choose not to continue destroying and exploiting their countries, they would stop too? Again, they don't hate us "because they hate freedom." That's a joke.

Please explain to me how we are exploiting these countries! The United States has acquired the following things from the Middle East:

Dead US Military members
TRILLIONS of dollars in Debt

We haven't taken control of any of the oil reserves in Iraq.. we haven't taken over any natural resources in Afghanistan... please enlighten me on how we are exploiting these countries.

[Deleted]

It depends on the conflict and what side you're on.
While many may indeed not be "fighting for our freedom" even though society tells them they are,
ordinary soldiers shouldn't bear the blame of those who really cause the conflicts.
It's always the leadership that is to blame for such decisions.

But yeah, those who are currently in Afghanistan aren't fighting for anyone's freedom
(with the exception of the Afghanis). They're mostly doing more harm than good,
that's the harsh truth.

In a way it's the thought that counts, and you should atleast give them some credit,
because they signed up believing they would help protect your freedoms.

[Deleted]

I used to want to join the military and I'm glad I didn't.

If my country was invaded or attacked directly and a war ensued, I'd happily join up. But I won't be a part of a standing army that's at the disposal of politicians going to war for the wrong reasons and outside influence.

If people want to be pawns in a game then that's up to them, but you'd have to give me a damn good reason to step onto the chess board.

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger. Rather harsh, but not necessarily wrong.

[Roose]

Many of our soldiers have the best of intentions, just like police officers. Their job is following orders, though. I have much respect for those that do jobs that put their lives on the line, that includes every dangerous profession.

My father is a veteran. I have much respect for what he did. I do not have much respect for the US Navy for exploiting him for their gains. He made the mistake of displaying competence. The Navy destroyed my father and sent him home a broken man. They took my father from my family for 20 years and returned him in the worst physical and mental shape of his life.

I have all the respect in the world for our service men and women. I have no respect for our leaders that pick fights in foreign lands for profits. Then send our soldiers home with broken minds and bodies to the worst healthcare system in the developed world.

[Doktor Faustus]

Look into the background of why the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor, do not illuminate that event in history like a solitary event out of time and context.

[Arlon]

Care to post the link? I genuinely do not remember doing this, I cannot blame the booze either as I have not drank for a month now.

Edit: I checked my post history for the last week, I took part in no such conversation.

Yes, apologies. I mistook you for Wells -.-

[Daerio]

Please explain to me how we are exploiting these countries! The United States has acquired the following things from the Middle East:

Dead US Military members
TRILLIONS of dollars in Debt

We haven't taken control of any of the oil reserves in Iraq.. we haven't taken over any natural resources in Afghanistan... please enlighten me on how we are exploiting these countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

In the midst of World War II in 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This had a major impact on Iran, which had declared neutrality in the conflict.

Later that year British and Soviet forces occupied Iran in a military invasion, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate. Prince Mohammad Reza replaced him on the throne on 16 September 1941. Subsequent to his succession as Shah, Iran became a major conduit for British and, later, American aid to the USSR during the war. This massive supply effort became known as the Persian Corridor, an involvement that would continue to grow until the successful revolution against the Iranian monarchy in 1979.

I tire of reposting the same things. Again, if you truly believe that we've "done nothing wrong!" - you're deluding yourself. We DID create this situation. It wasn't me personally, and it wasn't you personally, but our government has participated in the systematic abuse and exploitation of third world countries, including the Middle East. It is not unrealistic to expect them to fight back, in the only way they can.

[smelltheglove]

What are your thoughts on these people? Every time I hear someone talk about the military and how thankful they are for them for fighting for our freedom and defending our country, I just die a little inside, and seriously want to punch a hole in the wall with my head. No they are not fighting for our freedom, and no they are not defending our country. No country in the Middle East is a serious threat to the United States. Their response: "But we're over there to combat terrorism". Wake the fuck up, terrorists are everywhere. That guy that shot a bunch of kids in that Sandy Hook elementary school, terrorist. That guy that shot all those people in that movie theater in Colorado, terrorist. That guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway, terrorist. You can not go to a specific part of the world in hopes of combating an idea. It's simply propaganda.

The only time they are defending us is if our country is in danger like when Japan bombed the shit out of Pearl Harbor in WW2.

questioning the motives of politicians that choose the wars in one thing. making an ignorant blanket statement regarding the motivation of service members is another. i believe it is in my best interest to avoid this thread

[Scinder]

Look into the background of why the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor, do not illuminate that event in history like a solitary event out of time and context.

I'm not sure who's post you are referring to but I would like to know where you are going with this line of thought.

[Daerio]

I'm not sure who's post you are referring to but I would like to know where you are going with this line of thought.

It was the OP, and the circumstances surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor were that the US had placed a trade embargo on Japan, including oil. They are an island with few natural resources, and we were essentially destroying their economy. It was, again, predictable for them to fight back against such action.

It was not a completely "unexpected, unprovoked" attack. I believe that was his point. If another country did such a thing to us, cutting off all import/export to and from the US, you can bet we'd go to war over it.

[Scinder]

Well, criteria are important here. If you say "rich" and then say "top of GDP rankings", that doesn't mean much. You might try and make a derogatory post, but you fail to include anything that would discredit the post you quote, or anything that would strengthen yours. In fact, you just ask my home country to see if you can get some flame in one way or another.

If you take the criteria of "rich", most people will not look at gross domestic product. But, go ahead, make unfunded refutes

You put the US in the category of piss-poor without any factual data. While the country has slipped in years, so has the rest of the world. Calling the US poor is just ignorant and reckless.

Kind of hard to refute anything other than pure opinion when you fail to provide any facts to back up your claim. I would still put my country up against wherever you live any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[SirPiken]

The amount of "I'm 18 and have the world figured out." in this thread is epic.

[Verain]

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

With such a begging-the-question post, of course that's his only purpose. He lists a couple facts, and they are incorrect.

Look, I'm opposed to foreign wars and occupations. But this kind of stuff is just silly.

"That guy that shot a bunch of kids in that Sandy Hook elementary school, terrorist."
No. That guy, while obviously deranged, wasn't a terrorist.
"That guy that shot all those people in that movie theater in Colorado, terrorist. "
Nope! Also not a terrorist.
"That guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway, terrorist."
While actually closer, nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion."

Ok. So, a guy shooting up random people is NOT "systematic". It doesn't actually use terror- I'm not worried about the guy who shot up the Aurora theater shooting me too. No terror is caused. He doesn't represent a group opposed to Coloradans, or movie theaters. He's a crazy asshole with some kind of motivation, but what he did was mass murder, not terrorism.

Wikipedia continues:

"In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group."

All these words exclude everyone but POSSIBLY "that guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway". But he's not really a terrorist either- while he has a political grudge, his goal seemed to be mostly murder, with perhaps a side of recognition for his cause. He doesn't represent some group, he doesn't actually seek to create terror.


If you want to argue against US presence in foreign countries, you can basically do so with principle of pragmatism. Principle sounds like "we shouldn't interfere with the internal affairs of other nations" or "foreign affairs should not be our business". Pragmatism sounds like "We can't afford foreign wars", "By exerting our will in other nations we lose international support and provide propaganda for future efforts of terrorist groups to recruit". Or many others.

Random shooters aren't terrorists. 9/11 was terrorism, because it caused terror. There was even a real concern that Al Qaeda would take other, subsequent actions (and even NOW, they still might- because Al Qaeda is a terrorist group).


Additionally, OP seems to attack soldiers, not the policies and politicians that send them into harms way. Tell me, who do I vote for if I don't want a foreign war? The Ds and the Rs both love those things. I vote Libertarian when I can, but team yellow there is thrilled in elections where it scores a meaty 1%- and way way way more Americans are opposed to foreign wars than vote all third parties combined.

No country in the Middle East is a serious threat to the United States.

With the weapons programs they may or may not have, we know Iran isn't that far from a nuke- and some would claim they are racing towards one. That COULD be a threat, right? Before the invasion, Iraq funded non-state terrorist groups as well. I don't feel that justified the Iraq war, but to claim that these nations are no threat to us is just wrong.

[Bolverker]

What are your thoughts on these people? Every time I hear someone talk about the military and how thankful they are for them for fighting for our freedom and defending our country, I just die a little inside, and seriously want to punch a hole in the wall with my head. No they are not fighting for our freedom, and no they are not defending our country. No country in the Middle East is a serious threat to the United States. Their response: "But we're over there to combat terrorism". Wake the fuck up, terrorists are everywhere. That guy that shot a bunch of kids in that Sandy Hook elementary school, terrorist. That guy that shot all those people in that movie theater in Colorado, terrorist. That guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway, terrorist. You can not go to a specific part of the world in hopes of combating an idea. It's simply propaganda.

The only time they are defending us is if our country is in danger like when Japan bombed the shit out of Pearl Harbor in WW2.

I am guessing you typed this right after arguing with a crazy redneck, hence you're dickish attitude which will probably offend many people in the military, veterans, and or other patriotic people. And I can understand this, but at the same time I am incredibly proud of my ancestors who gave blood in multiple wars, including WW1, WW2, Civil War, Spanish American War, Revolutionary War, and Vietnam. I my self have never server, but I always give great respect to people who have and currently served just because, well you should. These people may have alternative motives in joining the military, but they are in the military and its the military that literally protects us. Now, while I am not saying the current occupations in the middle east are 100% justified, but those areas use to be incredibly populated with people performing terrorist activities. And just because you don't see 9/11's happening every year doesn't mean they aren't justified. The occupations were reactions and preventative measures in assuring our safety and well being. While you may take that as a loud of crap, its people that do that are incredibly naive and don't realize America is an awesome place to live and most people (around the world) don't have the luxury to bitch about such topics on forums. They have more pressing concerns.

tl;dr You should respect our previous and present military. We have first world problems and shouldn't take what we have for granted.

[Deleted]

What are your thoughts on these people? Every time I hear someone talk about the military and how thankful they are for them for fighting for our freedom and defending our country, I just die a little inside, and seriously want to punch a hole in the wall with my head. No they are not fighting for our freedom, and no they are not defending our country. No country in the Middle East is a serious threat to the United States. Their response: "But we're over there to combat terrorism". Wake the fuck up, terrorists are everywhere. That guy that shot a bunch of kids in that Sandy Hook elementary school, terrorist. That guy that shot all those people in that movie theater in Colorado, terrorist. That guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway, terrorist. You can not go to a specific part of the world in hopes of combating an idea. It's simply propaganda.

The only time they are defending us is if our country is in danger like when Japan bombed the shit out of Pearl Harbor in WW2.

I get what you are saying - like how can soldiers be protecting us when we arent really in any threat - the thing is soldiers are fighting to protect the interests of the west, now that may be oil, or resources or vital areas of a map that put the country in a stronger position, these things might not be seen by you as relevant, but 2,5, 10 years down the line they will be vital, So because the majority of people are idiots and cant grasp that concept its just easier for politicians to say "defending our freedoms" ,

[Daerio]

I get what you are saying - like how can soldiers be protecting us when we arent really in any threat - the thing is soldiers are fighting to protect the interests of the west, now that may be oil, or resources or vital areas of a map that put the country in a stronger position, these things might not be seen by you as relevant, but 2,5, 10 years down the line they will be vital, So because the majority of people are idiots and cant grasp that concept its just easier for politicians to say "defending our freedoms" ,

Do you think oil, resources, or vital areas of a map are worth invading sovereign countries, and killing native inhabitants over? Do you think we have the moral or legal justification to do so? If so, I question your intelligence, and your right to call other people 'idiots.'

[Annapolis]

"That guy that shot a bunch of kids in that Sandy Hook elementary school, terrorist."
No. That guy, while obviously deranged, wasn't a terrorist.
"That guy that shot all those people in that movie theater in Colorado, terrorist. "
Nope! Also not a terrorist.
"That guy that shot a crap ton of people in Norway, terrorist."
While actually closer, nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion."

I don't agree with your assessment here. I don't think that fringe religious groups are any more terrorists than somebody who specifically targets civilians and children to shoot. By your definition a suicide bomber can't be systematic either. The terror they inflict is that other people, similar to them, will do similar things. This is the same for shooters. Shootings are still in the news today even a month after the Sandy Hook shooting. How is that not terror? The families didn't send their children to school for a while after the shooting. They knew the shooter himself was no longer a threat, but he inflicted terror. The terror comes from the fact that what the terrorists do can be repeated by other people.

That was off-topic but I'm tired of people just attributing terrorism to middle-eastern fringe religious groups. It's not a strict definition and it is dependent on the person making the assessment.

[Deleted]

The amount of "I'm 18 and have the world figured out." in this thread is epic.

Though many who actually return from these wars, you know with some experience, understand that many of them are just bullshit and you're not protecting any people's freedoms.