• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Does the military ensure our freedom? (America)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate our military, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the governments's direction.

But you can't really hate on soldiers, they're just following orders.

This. Hating on soldiers themselves (with the exception of the bad apples of course) is disgusting. Getting shot at as part of your job in order to fight those who want to oppress and keep people in the stone ages is IMO admirable, although the government needs to be more careful about how they use our troops.

America is not a free country.

It has not been for a while.

Our military at this point serves the same function as police, just on a global rather than a local scale:

Social control and protection of property.

The answer is no.

lol.

World: "XXXX is being overrun by extremists! Innocents are dying in droves! Why won't America step in and provide help?"

America: "We just got out of two costly and useless wars, but okay, we'll provide some air support and--"

World: "WTF is wrong with you, America!? World police! World police! Mind your own business!!"

All while pretending our coalition partners just stand on the sidelines and watch when in reality they're slingin' out bombs just like we are. America alone is not the "world police." We're the Chief of Police in a department with many (mostly European) officers. is the policing always justified? Obviously not. But if certain countries weren't such trash heaps with regard to human rights and suffering, such "policing" wouldn't be necessary at all.
 
And every historian, European included, agrees that the US entry turned the tide of war against the Nazis.

You are making this up? The US definitely helped tremendously, especially in terms of economic aid to britain and some to Russia. But most serious historians agree that the Russians essentially at such a great cost, defeated the Nazis. The Russians fought over 6 million nazis on the eastern front and the combined british/commonwealth/american forces barely fought a million in the west. The nazis were broken before we set a foot in France. That said, thankfully we did enter the european theater because everybody would be speaking russian, not german.
 
The ones who aren't taking selfies with torture victims and dead civilians probably do

We could probably "ensure freedom" with just enough nukes to keep other nations with military power at bay.
 
This. Hating on soldiers themselves (with the exception of the bad apples of course) is disgusting. Getting shot at as part of your job in order to fight those who want to oppress and keep people in the stone ages is IMO admirable, although the government needs to be more careful about how they use our troops.

Except that's not their job. Their job is to follow and execute on orders. There is no great war against tyranny going on. It's just proxy and interest wars. People add a mis-placed nobility to the current profession.

I disagree with hate, I disagree with worship. Soldiers are just people who signed up for a specific profession which has danger pay (or should). They should be treated the same as everyone else, or at least every civil service worker.

EDIT - Actually, to your 1 point about trying to keep people in the stone ages. Let's look at the last major American war, the Invasion of Iraq. Here is what Saddam had done for Iraq. We all know of the atrocities committed by him, and we know he was a dictator, but there was also some serious social progression made by him. America is the one that brought Iraq back to the Stone Age:

Education
The National Campaign for Eradication of Illiteracy:
Refusing to send your child to school at the age of six was a crime punished by law, usually by prison time, under Saddam's regime starting from the late '70s and up until he was removed from power, and yes, that did include girls. Saddam was actually very supportive of women in that regard. In 1976, Iraq hosted the "Baghdad Conference for the Eradication of Illiteracy". Shortly after, he initiated the "National Campaign for Eradication of Illiteracy". The results were very positive, so much that Iraq was awarded The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) prize for eradicating illiteracy in 1982, just three years after Saddam became president.[1]

Free Education
Education was made free to everyone in Iraq under Saddam's regime. This not only includes grade school, but also covers college and graduate level education.[2] It started in the early '70s and resulted, by the mid '80s, in an unprecedented 100% enrollment rates, and of course helped build a better educated middle class. Those years were called "The Golden Years" for the Iraqi Education System. [2][3]

Furthermore, government scholarships were given every years for hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis to study abroad. This resulted in a solid education system that enjoyed a reputation that made it the destination for many Arab students in the area, whom were also given free education.[4]

Educational Institutes
Out of all the universities in Iraq, only about four were established before Saddam's regime. The University of Baghdad, found in 1908 and the second largest Arab university after the University of Cairo, was only followed by ones in Mosul and Basrah, Iraq's other major cities, roughly 60 years later. Nowadays, every province in Iraq has a university of its own, if not more than one.[5][6]

Furthermore, a number of schools were built in every city, and at least one was built in every village in the country. Also, a pair of gifted schools were built and named after Saddam in every province, one for males, the other for females. I've personally graduated from one of those. Out of 90 students in my school's class of 2003, 40 got into Medical School, all of the rest became engineers. Those schools degraded significantly after 2003, I must say. One particular gifted school was built in Baghdad in 1998. Its Wikipedia article claims that its purpose was to prepare intelligent students for Saddam's service, and while that might very well be true, it provides no citations on the matter.[7]


Economy:
Nationalization of Oil:
As vice president, Saddam led the oil nationalization process for Al-Ba'ath party in 1972.[8] Western oil companies had a strong monopoly over the Iraqi oil production.[9] The aftermath of the nationalization was tripling[10] the Iraqi oil production in the first ~8 years, let alone not having to give percentages of the profits to non-Iraqi companies and strengthening the Iraqi economy in the process.

Agriculture and Empowering of Farmers:
While Feudalism was prohibited in 1958 by the July 14th revolution years before Al-Ba'ath party took charge, farmers were very much empowered by the government under Saddam regime. They were given pieces of land, loans, modern machinery, discounted seeds and water supplies, and every other resource necessary for them to thrive and succeed.[11] This also included the biggest land reclamation project in the history of Iraq, [12] since large areas of land became inarable in the beginning of the century. Saddam's river, also known as the third river, among other projects, was constructed to fight the issue, although that river was mainly constructed for the draining of the Hawizeh marshes to gain a tactical advantage over the Iranis during the Iran-Iraq war.[13]

Helping The Middle Class:
Saddam had numerous achievements in this area. Iraqis, and especially government employees, were given small pieces of land for them to build houses on, which was complimented by loans specifically tailored for that purpose. Houses and apartments were also given to some government employees. That either came in the form of living on government property without paying rent for college professors for example, but also manifested in building housing units that were given for free for people to own. Another way to give out housing units was by encouraging communities to collaboratively build housing complexes on government-owned land for those in need. I was unable to find any citations for this, feel free to post what you find in the comments and I'll update the answer accordingly.

Regionally, Saddam also had a number of achievements. An example is providing work opportunities for Egyptian and Moroccan famers. In 1980, the number of Egyptian workers grew to 1.5 million in Iraq. Saddam provided them with free health insurance and social security coverage as well. [12] This and other gestures towards neighboring Arab countries explain the outrage in the Arab world when Saddam was removed from power and later executed. Arabs viewed Iraqis as traitors since they only experienced the bright side of Saddam, and were spared the horrors that we suffered as his people.

Infrastructure:
Water and Electricity were made available to nearly every city and village in Iraq. "Model Villages" were built to provide farmers with better services and overall living standards. At least one school and clinic were built in every village. Roads were paved and modern highways were constructed all over the country. Bridges and recreational villages were built in numerous locations.

Work on the Mosul Dam, the fourth largest dam in the middle east, was started in 1980, a year after he became president and was finished 6 years later. A number of other modern dams were built during the '70s and '80s, giving Iraq more control over its water resources, and providing them with electricity. [14]

Furthermore, light and heavy industries flourished in the '80s as a part of a policy to decrease dependency on oil that Saddam deputed. [15] Large factories were built all over the country and Iraq was making its own radios, televisions, heaters, air conditioners, fridges, and just about anything else you can think of. My family still has some house appliances around that were made in Iraq during the '80s.

Healthcare:
Basic healthcare was free for everyone, and generally dirt cheap for anything that requires more than a simple visit to the doctor. Medicine prices were heavily discounted by the government. Things like birth control pills were made available, usually for free, for Iraqi women. Kids were vaccinated door-to-door by the government. Medical care reached 97% of the urban population and 71% of the rural population. Mortality rate was 50/1000 LB, infant mortality was 40/1000 LB. Hospitals were built in every city and the Iraqi healthcare system was known to be of very high quality, Iraq was actually about to gain developed country status, versus being a developing country.[16]

Additionally, a committee that answers to Saddam himself was initiated to evaluate cases that needed medical attention outside the country, and patients were flown to destination countries and treated all on the government's expense.
 
Except that's not their job. Their job is to follow and execute on orders. There is no great war against tyranny going on. It's just proxy and interest wars. People add a mis-placed nobility to the current profession.

I disagree with hate, I disagree with worship. Soldiers are just people who signed up for a specific profession which has danger pay (or should). They should be treated the same as everyone else, or at least every civil service worker.

People have reasons to choose a career that involves being shot at, you know. They're not forced into the military, it's something they choose to do. That's what I find admirable, because it's something most people aren't willing to do due to the danger.

Yeah, a sewer worker has a shitty job too that most people wouldn't do. But he/she doesn't have to worry about 7.62 mm bullets and roadside bombs potentially ending their existence at any moment.
 
This. Hating on soldiers themselves (with the exception of the bad apples of course) is disgusting. Getting shot at as part of your job in order to fight those who want to oppress and keep people in the stone ages is IMO admirable, although the government needs to be more careful about how they use our troops.

lol.

World: "XXXX is being overrun by extremists! Innocents are dying in droves! Why won't America step in and provide help?"

America: "We just got out of two costly and useless wars, but okay, we'll provide some air support and--"

World: "WTF is wrong with you, America!? World police! World police! Mind your own business!!"

All while pretending our coalition partners just stand on the sidelines and watch when in reality they're slingin' out bombs just like we are.

It seems to me like a lot of the problems in the Middle East at this moment are because of actions taken by the U.S. in the first place. And a country that does legitimately need our protection, like Palestine is being put aside by the large military aid we provide to Israel.
 
The Nuremberg verdict disagrees.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Or some such.

You're right. I'm speaking specifically under Geneva Convention protocol.
 
USSR and the USA screwed up so many countries from their intervention. Eastern Europe is a mess thanks to the USSR. Central America and the Middle East is a mess thanks to the USA.

The only interference that was ever worse than the USSR & USA did during the Cold War and Information Age, was European colonization of South America, Africa, and Asia.
 
It seems to me like a lot of the problems in the Middle East at this moment are because of actions taken by the U.S. in the first place. And a country that does legitimately need our protection, like Palestine is being put aside by the large military aid we provide to Israel. This isn't just a problem with the military; it's with U.S. foreign policy. Haitians weren't begging the U.S. to give them a dictator; nor were the countries that the U.S. intervened in during the cold war.

I don't agree with many of the decisions our government makes either with regard to foreign policy. But again, you're placing that blame with us and not with the countries that also stand with us and help us in those endeavors. You may want to look at the list of countries that actively supported the US during the Iraq war, which I think most of us now agree was a huge mistake. But those countries still supported us regardless. That's why the "world police" comment is bullshit, because half the leaders in Europe can't/won't say no to us. Europe us just as much apart of the world police as we are.
 
I don't agree with many of the decisions our government makes either with regard to foreign policy. But again, you're placing that blame with us and not with the countries that also stand with us and help us in those endeavors. You may want to look at the list of countries that actively supported the US during the Iraq war, which I think most of us now agree was a huge mistake. But those countries still supported us regardless.

I do blame them too. But when you talk about Germany's invasion of Europe, do you speak of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, etc (the nations of their "co-alition of the willing")? There is one nation that orchestrated it, you focus on them.
 
EDIT: I can't believe people are saying "American isn't a free country" lol

As an alien in America, i think it's a perfect first world problem.

Granted we are not as free to pursue our happiness as some of the Scandinavian countries but people don't know what it's like to live in a conformist society where you may killed for petty things such as wearing the wrong clothes or worshipping a different god.

I mean, in many other countries just having this conversation or disagreeing with popular opinion may result in a witch hint, only in America you get to say all these things without being threatened, hell you get to picket soldier's funerals. That is the freedom people in the military sign up to protect.
 
I do blame them too. But when you talk about Germany's invasion of Europe, do you speak of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, etc (the nations of their "co-alition of the willing")? There is one nation that orchestrated it, you focus on them.

Just because Germany led that movement doesn't mean the supporting countries were insignificant, hence why a lot people refer to Axis rather than just Germany in WWII. Europe plays a much bigger role when supporting the US than the non-German Axis powers did in WWII. The "US-led" airstrikes in Libya for example... One could argue France was a more significant factor in that event than we were.

Yes, because this is how it all works.

Holy shit. I'm crying. Thank you so much for posting this.

Sorry if you think it's funny, but that's basically how the internet reacts to this stuff. :P AKA tons of debate regardless of what we do. It's always a lose-lose.
 
I mean, in many other countries just having this conversation or disagreeing with popular opinion may result in a witch hint, only in America you get to say all these things without being threatened, hell you get to picket soldier's funerals. That is the freedom people in the military sign up to protect.

Once again, incorrect. Nations like Canada, Australia, Scandinavian countries, are quite ahead on these fronts.

This "Only in America" is such an antiquated way of thinking. America isn't the beacon of freedom that it may have once been thought of (was it ever ahead of those countries?). They are so far behind those countries and the gap keeps increasing with each decade. Same way the countries you described are so far behind America.
 
I would say it's not the function of military. The job of insuring our freedom should ultimately be the job of our elected government and the Supreme Court. Ideally the military enables them to do that by keeping them in power in the face of threats.

Having a military going about dictating what freedom should be and enabling those ideals, I think it's the beginning of a stratocracy.
 
USSR and the USA screwed up so many countries from their intervention. Eastern Europe is a mess thanks to the USSR. Central America and the Middle East is a mess thanks to the USA.

The Middle East was a mess long before the US ever got involved in the region.
 
Yeah but we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to not help.

Yeah, US involvement definitely hasn't done the region any favors. Though honestly even if the US pulled out all Middle Eastern operations today I don't see stability returning to that part of the world until they can't suck any more oil out from under it (or a cheaper alternative becomes widespread).
 
*shrug*
OP should get all offended on Veterans Day, Memorial Day is for the ones who have died. As for the question.. no we don't actually "protect" your freedom, that is actually up to lawmakers and those who vote them in and out. What we do is provide physical security and help maintain America's status as a super power in the world and all the benefits that goes along with that. US military, economic and diplomatic power.. and I guess cultureis in there somewhere.
 
Once again, incorrect. Nations like Canada, Australia, Scandinavian countries, are quite ahead on these fronts.

This "Only in America" is such an antiquated way of thinking. America isn't the beacon of freedom that it may have once been thought of (was it ever ahead of those countries?). They are so far behind those countries and the gap keeps increasing with each decade. Same way the countries you described are so far behind America.

Well if that's how you look at it, good for you. For me, the second amendment is the trump card that insures that the freedom i have here will probably be unmatched elsewhere. For example, take France. You can get arrested for wearing certain types of clothing (talking about the hijab here), for me that is complete bullshit. A government should never be in the bussiness of telling its citizens what they can and cannot wear. And it's reassuring for me to know that kind of shit would never fly in America.

Also, there is more to this world then a bunch of western countries. Different strokes for different folks, I respect your cynical view of America and it's policies and how other westerm nations are far ahead in ensuring freedom for their citizens. I do wonder however if you have ever lived in a third world country which doesn't guarantee the freedoms available in America that you are downplaying. I have and that's why I appreciate what I have here.
 
Once again, incorrect. Nations like Canada, Australia, Scandinavian countries, are quite ahead on these fronts.

This "Only in America" is such an antiquated way of thinking. America isn't the beacon of freedom that it may have once been thought of (was it ever ahead of those countries?). They are so far behind those countries and the gap keeps increasing with each decade. Same way the countries you described are so far behind America.

Canada, Australia, and scandanavia do not have more protected speech than the US. I challenge you to find any developed nation with more liberal protected speech laws and constitutional rulings than the US. Australia has far more strict censorship laws than the US. Especially in the realm of hate speech the US is almost indisputably tops in it's protection of it whether you consider that a good thing or not.

Proving libel in the US is probably more difficult than just about anywhere else in the world. Press freedom is where the US is not the top at.
 
Well if that's how you look at it, good for you. For me, the second amendment is the trump card that insures that the freedom i have here will probably be unmatched elsewhere. For example, take France. You can get arrested for wearing certain types of clothing (talking about the hijab here), for me that is complete bullshit. A government should never be in the bussiness of telling its citizens what they can and cannot wear. And it's reassuring for me to know that kind of shit would never fly in America.

Also, there is more to this world then a bunch of western countries. Different strokes for different folks, I respect your cynical view of America and it's policies and how other westerm nations are far ahead in ensuring freedom for their citizens. I do wonder however if you have ever lived in a third world country which doesn't guarantee the freedoms available in America that you are downplaying. I have and that's why I appreciate what I have here.

You shouldn't want better than the worst, you should want the best. America certainly has the means to attain it.
 
You shouldn't want better than the worst, you should want the best. America certainly has the means to attain it.

For me, America IS the best for many reasons. One of them being the constitution.

But anyways, specifically in my case, beggars can't be choosers. I am grateful for all the opportunities that this country has provided me. I wouldn't trade it off for another one. That's like saying leave your current gf because next one would be better. But the current one accepted me first and as I was. Probably stupid analogy but you get the point.
 
The Japanese never intended to take the US. And as far as the European theatre the US was pretty late in committing to that.

Sure, but Japanese expansionism was incredibly destructive, objectively more so than American meddling. The best parallel would be the Spanish Empire, I guess. Had the US not stepped in, dozens of languages and cultures would be gone today, and many more atrocities would have occurred in Oceania and mainland Asia.
 
For me, America IS the best for many reasons. One of them being the constitution.

But anyways, specifically in my case, beggars can't be choosers. I am grateful to all the opportunities that this country has provided me. I wouldn't trade it off for another one. That's like saying leave your current gf because next one would be better. But the current one accepted me first and as I was. Probably stupid analogy but you get the point.

You know that most countries have a constitution right? Most modern nations have a constitution that protects things like freedom of speech? Here's an example of the language from the Canadian Consitution (or specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

As has been posted multiple times in this thread, it is a proven fact that America is not the best in the freedom categories. What other metric do you want to look at? Median Income for Low and Middle class families? Scandinavian and Canada have you beat. GDP per capita? A lot of countries have you beat. Education? You are ranked quite low. Healthcare? Come on. Quality of life? The most important metric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index (You are 16th btw)
 
You know that most countries have a constitution right? Most modern nations have a constitution that protects things like freedom of speech? Here's an example of the language from the Canadian Consitution (or specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):



As has been posted multiple times in this thread, it is a proven fact that America is not the best in the freedom categories. What other metric do you want to look at? Median Income for Low and Middle class families? Scandinavian and Canada have you beat. GDP per capita? A lot of countries have you beat. Education? You are ranked quite low. Healthcare? Come on. Quality of life? The most important metric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index (You are 16th btw)

I think you are just hell bent on forcing ypur opinion. I even added "for me" in my post. It's a personal choice. I greatly respect the constitution/bill of rights for many reasons but mainly because it was a revolutionary document for it's age. I was born in a country that basically says religious law is above everything else, let alone individual rights. You need to stop advocating for planet canada.
 
I'm too lazy to search through every post. If someone hasn't shared Bojack's comments regarding the navy seal, they should.

(I'm at work and on mobile).
 
Oh, here are direct links to Press Freedom Index:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html (US is #32)

Give it up, it's hard to change the mind of people who only have a third world country as a reference point. Some of my relatives are the same. They remember their old home, live in the US now and can't conceive of anything that could be better. I was raised in Canada so it's easy for me to sniff out the american exceptionalism bullshit.
 
I think you are just hell bent on forcing ypur opinion. I even added "for me" in my post. It's a personal choice. I greatly respect the constitution/bill of rights for many reasons but mainly because it was a revolutionary document for it's age. I was born in a country that basically says religious law is above everything else, let alone individual rights. You need to stop advocating for planet canada.

It's not an opinion though, these are things that have tangible facts and statistics to which I have linked some of them for you. You have an opinion of America being the best or the most free, I have facts that it is not.
 
Once again, incorrect. Nations like Canada, Australia, Scandinavian countries, are quite ahead on these fronts.

This "Only in America" is such an antiquated way of thinking. America isn't the beacon of freedom that it may have once been thought of (was it ever ahead of those countries?). They are so far behind those countries and the gap keeps increasing with each decade. Same way the countries you described are so far behind America.

While I agree that the "only in America" statement is laughable, in what ways are Canada, Australia, and the Nordics better in terms of free speech?
 
While I agree that the "only in America" statement is laughable, in what ways are Canada, Australia, and the Nordics better in terms of free speech?

Read the links I provided after that post and before it. Google "freedom of speech by country" if you want more sources or statistics.

Press Freedom, Censorship, Right to Organize, Discrimination & Defamation Law are some of the things that go into understanding freedom of speech.
 
I spent 6 years on active duty. I've been to Afghanistan. I'm still a member of the Reserve component, and I'm actually on orders until the end of September as I'm typing this right now.

The answer is no: the military does not ensure anyone's freedom. As I'd tell everyone who bothers to listen, the military merely underwrites Washington's geopolitical interests. Nothing more; nothing less.

I also hate being thanked for my service, and I imagine that's the case for many people actually in uniform. I hate jingoism. I hate the fetishizing. Yes, I've sacrificed time and liberty, perhaps more than most, but the hero worship galls me, especially when it's not extended (at least in some fashion) to other worthy public servants, like 4th grade teachers, city comptrollers, food inspectors, and public health professionals.

Anyway, in case you were wondering, that's the correct answer.
 
You have an opinion of America being the best or the most free, I have facts that it is not.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." -Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Part of freedom is deciding what you think it is for yourself. Some people may think it includes the right to bear arms or freedom from excessive taxation. We don't have Tory shaming in Murica or armed guards outside synagogues. We don't ship off our sovereignty to Brussels Belgium. Yes, you are right that Obama has ruined press freedom. I'll give you that.
 
And every historian, European included, agrees that the US entry turned the tide of war against the Nazis.

Sure, but Japanese expansionism was incredibly destructive, objectively more so than American meddling. The best parallel would be the Spanish Empire, I guess. Had the US not stepped in, dozens of languages and cultures would be gone today, and many more atrocities would have occurred in Oceania and mainland Asia.

I agree with all of that. But none of it is an existential crisis for the United States.

As someone who has been in the service for eleven years now, I don't give a fuck what you think about me or my job. Just as you would never expect me to show up to your place of employment and cheer you on. We're on different paths with different contributions to society. There's nothing wrong with thanking a vet. There's nothing wrong with not thanking a vet. Life goes on.

The key is to mind your own business. Don't begrudge people who want to thank military members on Veteran's day and Memorial day. Some great folks in the military have sacrificed a lot in the past to do great things. Celebrate those individuals instead of the military industrial complex. Then go back to your negative outlook about the military the other 363 days of the year.

One final note. I don't believe the military actively protects our freedoms everyday. But on a whole, yes, things would be a hell of a lot different if we didn't have our military might. If you read the amount of credible threats to our nation on a daily basis, you'd shit your pants. I know because I deal with them in my job. A combination of DoD, FBI, and DHS definitely helps keep the average American much safer than if those organizations didn't exist. At what cost? There's where you can debate with me about the pendulum swinging between freedom and security.

I think this is a really nice point. But I think it brings me back to my original comment - it's not that the US military protects our specific freedoms and liberties it's that it ensures (for better or worse) our lifestyle.
 
sure i guess, the moment the usa removes its military is the moment every other country turns on it and kicks it ass
 
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." -Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Part of freedom is deciding what you think it is for yourself. Some people may think it includes the right to bear arms or freedom from excessive taxation. We don't have Tory shaming in Murica or armed guards outside synagogues. We don't ship off our sovereignty to Brussels Belgium. Yes, you are right that Obama has ruined press freedom. I'll give you that.

Oh no.
 
Memorial day isn't about veterans or soldiers. It's about servicemembers who died while serving.

If you can't appreciate the sacrifices made in the revolutionary war, civil war, WW1, WW2 etc. I don't know what to say to you.

As for the current debate going on, I'll don't have anything to add except for the fact that Ukraine should serve as a good example of what happens when you have a weak military but I'll also concede the point that our current spending is way too much.
 
Read the links I provided after that post and before it. Google "freedom of speech by country" if you want more sources or statistics.

Press Freedom, Censorship, Right to Organize, Discrimination & Defamation Law are some of the things that go into understanding freedom of speech.

Okay. I've always considered freedom of the press to be separate than freedom of opinion, but I can see why it would make sense to view it as a part of speech.
 
I dont know about ensuring American freedoms because no state actor has been vaguely interested in attacking the American homeland since the Cuban Missile crisis, but I think the US projection of force is a two edged sword. On the one hand it ensures important economic powerhouse countries like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan arent militarily fucked with by China (especially Taiwan, whom the Chinese would have invaded decades ago if not for the US)
On the other side of the coin it arms awful regimes like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and doesnt exactly have a stellar track record in Latin America and other parts of the developing world.
It seems to me that if you're a developed country with a modest armed forces branch, the US military actually is ensuring your way of life continues smoothly.
But if you're in the third world..it's a flip of the coin.
 
3-Full-Metal-Jacket-quotes.gif

I'm guessing this is full metal jacket and it's supposed to refute my point that a military doesn't provide freedom? If you understood anything about the US government it would be that the civilian leadership determines what conflicts the armed forces participate in. Regardless of that if our military didn't exist our country wouldn't either and if you have problems about how the military is used i would advise you to vote different people into office.
 
I'm guessing this is full metal jacket and it's supposed to refute my point that a military doesn't provide freedom? If you understood anything about the US government it would be that the civilian leadership determines what conflicts the armed forces participate in. Regardless of that if our military didn't exist our country wouldn't either and if you have problems about how the military is used i would advise you to vote different people into office.




No. You have it backwards. The military only exists because our government exists. We had a government in America before our constitution in which they couldn't raise an army to fight anything, technically and actually the military didn't form the fucking nation, nor did the military actually help that failed articles before the constitution.
 
I don't hate on those serving the military directly they are the people that make the machine run and do let us have freedoms that if you spend time in other countries you might appreciate them.

What I do hate on are shills, hawks, politicians and cowards using the military as a corporate tool for their causes.
 
It's a pretty big waste. However that spending does come with benefits, it doesn't all go down the toilet. Or to buy toilets. A lot of US military capability is absolutely necessary for any modern conflict if you want to coordinate and reduce civilian casualties.

For example the Libya campaign couldn't have happened without US coordination ability, and the only reason the French bombing campaign in Mali had almost no civilian casualties is because of American AWACS planes coordinating efforts and making sure ordnance was put in the right place.

In-air refueling is exclusively (among NATO members, anyway) an American capability.
So we're shouldering the burden for other country's militaries too.
 
I'd prefer less deification of the fictional soldier ideal and more health/job benefits for veterans who so often come home physically and emotionally damaged...

But maybe that's just me!
 
So we're shouldering the burden for other country's militaries too.

We are. The unfortunate truth about American hegemony is that it's not as simple as "the US imposing itself on other countries". It's a mutually beneficial arrangement with other Western powers, who largely elected to demilitarize and instead funnel all their resources into social spending and economic production.

US hegemony will only end if wealthy European nations step up and take responsibility for their own military protection.
 
No. You have it backwards. The military only exists because our government exists. We had a government in America before our constitution in which they couldn't raise an army to fight anything, technically and actually the military didn't form the fucking nation, nor did the military actually help that failed articles before the constitution.

You raise great points but none that disprove any of my statement. It doesn't really matter what came first, but without a military (which is part if the government btw) the US would not exist.
 
Memorial Day is this weekend and social media has been awash with American military propaganda about how we enjoy the freedom we have today because of our military. Even when I came in to work today there was American Military servicemen in our lobby handing out 'Have a blessed Memorial Day' flyers. Should I feel guilty that I don't automatically subscribe to the notion that our servicemen ensure our freedoms, but rather believe that our American military presence throughout the world is possibly putting us in even greater danger? Do I have to swim with pride at the site of a uniform or a flag? What if I feel a little ambivalent about it? Does the make me an ungrateful, selfish American?

no I think you have a right on your opinion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom