How are soldiers "fighting for our freedom"???

[Gizmo j]

The reason I don't believe soldiers are "fighting for our freedom" is because whenever someone ask "how" people say that they prevent people from invading.

This argument is stupid because if you look at countries that had zero freedom such as:

North Korea
Nazi Germany
The Soviet Union
Communist China
Japan in 1940

All of these countries did a fantastic job at "preventing people from invading"....but that in no way gives the citizens "freedom".

If you would've said soldiers are fight for our protection that would at least make some kind of sense, but saying they are fight for our "freedom" is just retarded!

The only people that have the power to give or takeaway freedom are people that are residing WITHIN the country such as politicians, CEOs, policemen etc.

Lets say you were living in America during slavery and you wanted to fight for black peoples freedom, would joining the military have any possible effect on their freedom?

 

[alcoholbob]

American soldiers are fighting at the behest of Sunni monarchies in order for them to keep selling oil in dollars. This was Nixon's "solution" for the gold standard collapsing after the failure of the London Gold Pool in the 1960s. I guess if you somehow believed that the Union would fracture if the dollar collapsed and the federal government would be no longer able to enforce the constitution that the soldiers are fighting for our freedoms. Only in very roundabout logic could you justify it. But ultimately it's really just a way for the military industrial complex to justify its own existence.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Do you also believe the citizens in the US have no freedoms, like the examples you listed above?

 

[JEDIYoda]

The reason I don't believe soldiers are "fighting for our freedom" is because whenever someone ask "how" people say that they prevent people from invading.

This argument is stupid because if you look at countries that had zero freedom such as:

North Korea
Nazi Germany
The Soviet Union
Communist China
Japan in 1940

All of these countries did a fantastic job at "preventing people from invading"....but that in no way gives the citizens "freedom".

If you would've said soldiers are fight for our protection that would at least make some kind of sense, but saying they are fight for our "freedom" is just retarded!

The only people that have the power to give or takeaway freedom are people that are residing WITHIN the country such as politicians, CEOs, policemen etc.

Lets say you were living in America during slavery and you wanted to fight for black peoples freedom, would joining the military have any possible effect on their freedom?

Nothing to see here...move along....

 

[nickqt]

Well, they sign up to defend Americans, but usually end up providing protection to international business cartels and the military industrial complex.

 

[master_shake_]

Well, they sign up to defend Americans, but usually end up providing protection to international business cartels and the military industrial complex.

what good is an army or enforcement agency or government that won't bend to a corporations will?

 

[Newell Steamer]

"fighting for our freedom" != the common American's freedom.

"fighting for our freedom" = rich people's freedom to do whatever they damn well please overseas.

Our military is a mountain, it is immovable. No enemy army forces will set foot on American soil and last for more than a week, at best.

And our downfall; our military is a mountain. Small operatives/cells and ideas (fanaticism) can't be defeated via our size and force - our military just isn't surgical enough (thus the considerable amount of collateral damage). You can teach a small operative/cell force to infiltrate the enemy and fight fire with fire, but it has to be the perfect storm (in our favor) to do so - there is far too much treachery on the side of the fanatics.

So, what do you do with a mountain of an army? It's homeland doesn't need defending. There is no need to invade other countries... or success as a matter of fact (since Vietnam, because that was the 1st war we had against an idea we did not agree with). You put them to 'work' by protecting our nation's interests. Meaning, make us money. Fabricate wars and conflicts for the sake of feeding the mountain, to keep it a mountain.

Say what you will about the Middle East, that they (even the collateral damage) deserved our wrath - but, we are invaders. We are not liberators. A liberator empowers a nation with an idea they believe in and will die for - not have rammed down their throats in a matter of a few years and then leave... especially since there is a considerable amount of collateral damage.

It is blatant; out men and women are suffering for the sake of $, not us.

 

[trenchfoot]

"fighting for our freedom" != the common American's freedom.

"fighting for our freedom" = rich people's freedom to do whatever they damn well please overseas.

Our military is a mountain, it is immovable. No enemy army forces will set foot on American soil and last for more than a week, at best.

And our downfall; our military is a mountain. Small operatives/cells and ideas (fanaticism) can't be defeated via our size and force - our military just isn't surgical enough (thus the considerable amount of collateral damage). You can teach a small operative/cell force to infiltrate the enemy and fight fire with fire, but it has to be the perfect storm (in our favor) to do so - there is far too much treachery on the side of the fanatics.

So, what do you do with a mountain of an army? It's homeland doesn't need defending. There is no need to invade other countries... or success as a matter of fact (since Vietnam, because that was the 1st war we had against an idea we did not agree with). You put them to 'work' by protecting our nation's interests. Meaning, make us money. Fabricate wars and conflicts for the sake of feeding the mountain, to keep it a mountain.

Say what you will about the Middle East, that they (even the collateral damage) deserved our wrath - but, we are invaders. We are not liberators. A liberator empowers a nation with an idea they believe in and will die for - not have rammed down their throats in a matter of a few years and then leave... especially since there is a considerable amount of collateral damage.

It is blatant; out men and women are suffering for the sake of $, not us.

I agree. Such being the case, we all should heed the Repub's intense desire to privatize any and all gov't agencies, so then Big Business should be using their own privatized military for defending their overseas assets and leave the nation's military to do what they were always meant to do: defend the homeland against external threats, and keep those military personnel overseas in defensive mode to satisfy treaties negotiated in good faith with our allies.

edit - Our Navy, well, I guess they are an exception, their being our force projection to protect international sea lanes against threats - ie pirates, belligerent nations, etc. But the one caveat to their mission is that they will not be used to protect business interests and their personnel. They can provide their own security.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I agree. Such being the case, we all should heed the Repub's intense desire to privatize any and all gov't agencies, so then Big Business should be using their own privatized military for defending their overseas assets and leave the nation's military to do what they were always meant to do: defend the homeland against external threats, and keep those military personnel overseas in defensive mode to satisfy treaties negotiated in good faith with our allies.

edit - Our Navy, well, I guess they are an exception, their being our force projection to protect international sea lanes against threats - ie pirates, belligerent nations, etc. But the one caveat to their mission is that they will not be used to protect business interests and their personnel. They can provide their own security.

I wouldn't give the rich their own military. I would keep the military out of special interests, period.

Private security (body guards, etc.) are just fine. But, an entire military force, doing as it damn well pleases (invasions, occupation)? No. We can't have a group of people directing and ordering hits and attacks on innocent people and we turn a blind eye to it.

Now, if the majority of the US is a-OK with invading countries to secure more money and influence, have at it. But, let us be honest about it. This spreading freedom and protecting our freedom is clearly a lie.

 

[shady28]

American soldiers are fighting at the behest of Sunni monarchies in order for them to keep selling oil in dollars. This was Nixon's "solution" for the gold standard collapsing after the failure of the London Gold Pool in the 1960s...

This is exactly the reason. It amazes me how many stupid people do not understand this, or for some reason think it is not true.

The US is in a cul-de-sac on this issue. Without it the dollar and our economy collapses. It is the only reason the US has been able to deficit spend for decades and run up a 17+ trillion $$ debt. It is also the reason we are constantly in some sort of middle east conflict.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

"In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar, Richard Nixon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for arms and protection they would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars.[2] Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation.[citation needed] Since these dollars did not circulate within the country and thus were not part of the normal money supply, economists felt another term was necessary to describe the dollars received by petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil, so the term petrodollar was coined by Georgetown University economics professor, Ibrahim Oweiss."

 

[unokitty]

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes...

... Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Major General Smedley Butler

Uno

 

[soulcougher73]

They fight for corporate interests abroad.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The greatest military on the planet couldn't prevent 9/11.

 

[master_shake_]

The greatest military on the planet couldn't prevent 9/11.

it's not really the military's job to protect from that.

it's really the job of law enforcement.

you know the cia, fbi, atf shit like that.

 

[trenchfoot]

I wouldn't give the rich their own military. I would keep the military out of special interests, period.

Private security (body guards, etc.) are just fine. But, an entire military force, doing as it damn well pleases (invasions, occupation)? No. We can't have a group of people directing and ordering hits and attacks on innocent people and we turn a blind eye to it.

Now, if the majority of the US is a-OK with invading countries to secure more money and influence, have at it. But, let us be honest about it. This spreading freedom and protecting our freedom is clearly a lie.

For the most part, I agree. Although my thinking is that given their own security forces, Big Business would, by nature, be constrained in their activities by existing international law.

After pondering a bit on your post, I feel that just for the fact that they would be denied access to our own gov't military and the tax dollars to use them as Bush and Cheney had with the resultant disastrous results, it simply wouldn't be profitable for Big Business to use their own security forces the way they used our own gov't forces to gain access to other nation's resources or to accelerate the consumption of our own, with the resultant profits that would generate.

In other words, denied the use of our taxpayer funded military and the profits derived from their use, Big Business wouldn't use their own security forces in the same way, as they would need to do it at their own expense, rather than that of the American taxpayer.

Also, our own existing laws and the treaties and other agreements that dictate our relationships with other nations would also prevent Big Business from acting on their own accord.

That being said, I fully realize how corrupted our gov't is, and how beholden to big moneyed interests our politicians are. So there is that reality to contend with. In this regard, as with Bush/Cheney, our POTUS would then be THE most important choice to make in regards to how our military is exploited to make profits for Big Business.

 

[Ackmed]

Always cracks me up when people who have never served, think they know everything about the military.

 

[trenchfoot]

Always cracks me up when people who have never served, think they know everything about the military.

If you're referring to me, then sorry, I'm retired military with 26 yrs. of service under my belt.

 

[Sonikku]

It's ironic that the Right constantly peddles "less gubnit" and lower taxes, yet they're always for ballooning the military complex that only seems to be sporting more and more diminishing returns to the regular American. Many among the Republicans firmly believe that if we went back to a Clinton sized military our nation would be dogged by invasions on our soil we would be utterly incapable of dealing with.

This is primarily why I tend to support the Left. One could argue the spending on the level we have is unsustainable and should be rectified. But if it can't, then the choice is really only between the party that wants a little welfare for the many versus the party that wants enormous welfare for the few. Both parties are for big government and welfare, the choice was never between big or small, welfare or no welfare. You basically just pick your poison.

 

[Ackmed]

If you're referring to me, then sorry, I'm retired military with 26 yrs. of service under my belt.

Want a cookie? I didn't even make it down to you reply, I stopped after the first few.

 

[Leyawiin]

Want a cookie? I didn't even make it down to you reply, I stopped after the first few.

Which basically means you trump him tweaker2.

 

[Ackmed]

Which basically means you trump him tweaker2.

I don't get into dick swinging contests. There are different branches, and different MOS's in the military. Deployments and awards, etc. Longevity of a career isn't the end all.

But good try.

 

[shady28]

It's ironic that the Right constantly peddles "less gubnit" and lower taxes, yet they're always for ballooning the military complex that only seems to be sporting more and more diminishing returns to the regular American. Many among the Republicans firmly believe that if we went back to a Clinton sized military our nation would be dogged by invasions on our soil we would be utterly incapable of dealing with.

This is primarily why I tend to support the Left. One could argue the spending on the level we have is unsustainable and should be rectified. But if it can't, then the choice is really only between the party that wants a little welfare for the many versus the party that wants enormous welfare for the few. Both parties are for big government and welfare, the choice was never between big or small, welfare or no welfare. You basically just pick your poison.

What is your alternative, if the US stops supporting the petrodollar?

It isn't just Republicans that have been sending troops you know.

They don't have much choice.

 

[trenchfoot]

I don't get into dick swinging contests. There are different branches, and different MOS's in the military. Deployments and awards, etc. Longevity of a career isn't the end all.

But good try.

OK, without going into too much detail, I got drafted and served in Vietnam in a CBT Engr. Bn Hvy unit. I also served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and, although not serving in-theater, supported Iraqi Freedom out of Italy and Turkey.

I therefore think I still don't qualify to be included in the first post I quoted you in.

 

[nickqt]

Want a cookie? I didn't even make it down to you reply, I stopped after the first few.

Do you want a cookie for pretending like you have to serve in the military to be able to determine what the military is used for?

What's funny, boss, is that you bitch and moan about people who haven't served in the military saying things about it, and then when told that someone was in the military, act like it doesn't matter.

Nice flip-flop, Master Sergeant.

 

[MajinCry]

I'm pleasantly surprised; we've only had one soldier-worshipper-ish fella in the thread. I expected more.

I do share the OP's opinion. Focusing on the US military, wasn't Vietnam another one of those war-crime filled, uh, wars? Plenty of rape and slaughter went on during that one.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images...apersShowU.S.AtrocitiesWentFarBeyondMyLai.pdf