This is usually the phrase you hear when talking about the War in Irag and Afghanistan.

I was watching something and something along this line was said " There are soldiers over there dying so we can be free"

I've thought this was Bull Shit for a long time and finally decided to make a thread about it.

In all reality, the last time Americans as a whole had to "Protect their freedoms" was the war of 1812.

The current wars we are in- We were attacked one time. We were not invaded and have yet to fight on our own land. This war is more about getting rid of a dictator and exterminating a Terrorist Regime

Gulf War-Kuwait was invaded and needed help...USA (UN) to the rescue

Vietnam War- We wanted to keep Vietnam out of the hands of Communist China/Soviet Union

Korean War- See above

WWII-Attacked 1 time on our own land by the Japanese. We then began fighting them in the Pacific on numerous islands and at sea but never again on solid US soil (Guam, Samoa... don't really count as an invasion of the U.S. even though they are territories)
Germany/Italy never came close

WWI- We were happy being "neutral" until Germany decided to sink the Luisitania. If this didn't happen, do we ever enter the war?

Civil War- If you are from the South, then you can say that this was the last war in which your ancestors were fighting for their rights/freedoms.
This could go either way.

Mexican-American War- The U.S. decided to expand and annex Texas and Mexico didn't like it. We were the agressors and wanted territory.

War of 1812- Among other things, Great Britain invaded the U.S. and posed a serious threat of taking us over.

In the majority of these examples, we were attacked once and it has been shown that the attacker in most cases planned for that one attack hoping we wouldn't be ready.

This isn't a bash against the government of the Armed Force or anything. I respect those who choose to enlist and fight for our country.

However, they most certainly are not fighting so that you are I can be free. They are fighting, so our government can flex it's political and military muscle.

/Vent I'm just tired of hearing that.

bigkahuna wrote: This is usually the phrase you hear when talking about the War in Irag and Afghanistan.

I was watching something and something along this line was said " There are soldiers over there dying so others can be free"

i have no problem fighting for the freedom of others. we are all human. as others would say on here, we in america won the birth lottery. so why not help those who are less fortunate and dont have the freedoms we have.

Glory Days wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: This is usually the phrase you hear when talking about the War in Irag and Afghanistan.

I was watching something and something along this line was said " There are soldiers over there dying so others can be free"

i have no problem fighting for the freedom of others. we are all human. as others would say on here, we in america won the birth lottery. so why not help those who are less fortunate and dont have the freedoms we have.

Eh, i don't buy that. If that is truly our rational for engaging in conflicts, we should have done more to intervene in the Balkans, stepped in during the Rwandan Genocide, actually have went in to Sudan by now, etc.

And hell, for Sudan and Rwanda, we probably wouldn't have lost nearly any soldiers, just stepping on the ground would have put an end to so much.

But we didn't.

I don't buy that, in many instances, we're fighting with some sort of "humanitarian" mission in mind. Or, at least, that isn't the primary goal in many cases.

I mean, WWII and the like are exceptions, but in recent conflicts, i'm not seeing the "humanitarian" rationale all that often.

If that is the case, then we've missed countless opportunities to act in a benevolent manner.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm talking about people who say that they are protecting OUR freedoms.

If they/or the Government/ whoever said that we are fighting to make others free than ok, at least you're telling the truth.

I'm okay with freeing people from genocide, aprtheid, dictatorship....But call it that.

Also, help the locals bring the government down, don't do it for them. Or, what if they are okay with their situation? I'm not saying they did, but what if the Iraqis were okay with Sadaam?
I'm just simply asking for people to be honest.

I'll call BS on most of your post.

When the world, as a whole, is more Democratic and free -- we are all more secure, and so is our freedom.

Eliminating threats like Japan and Germany absolutely kept us free. If you don't believe we would have been next on the agenda (after Europe) you're delusional.

But hey, if you want to demonize your own country and it gives you tingles in your nether regions to do so -- have at it.

Freedom of speech is one of those things that is being protected at home and abroad by our men and women in uniform.

yeah, i mean both Germany and Japan had plans drawn up and even planes and ships built to attack us before we were at war with them. we were next on the chopping block for sure.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I'll call BS on most of your post.

When the world, as a whole, is more Democratic and free -- we are all more secure, and so is our freedom.

Eliminating threats like Japan and Germany absolutely kept us free. If you don't believe we would have been next on the agenda (after Europe) you're delusional.

But hey, if you want to demonize your own country and it gives you tingles in your nether regions to do so -- have at it.

Freedom of speech is one of those things that is being protected at home and abroad by our men and women in uniform.

The problem with forcing democracy on others is some don't want it. Though its nearly impossible for some to imagine people not wanting to live exactly like we do, due to the cultural and religious ideals in some regions those folks don't want to be democratic.

And when we invade their holy lands and force our western ideas on them it pisses them off and they fly planes into buildings. Thats why al-Qaeda has the support that they have. Even though not everyone over there wants to be a soldier for terrorism, they do support the ideology. As long as that's alive we can exhaust every military resource we have and never win the war on terror.

So, we can try to endoctrinate the whole world and tell them to speak english or die, but it's never going to work. Seems like a waste of money and life to me.

I think WWI you can argue economic freedom as our trading partners were engaged in war. WWII you can make a similar argument as play out the possibility of Nazi Germany and Japan surrounding the US. and threatening it.

Korea and Vietnam I think fall into the "Cold War file" as we contained the growth of communism just enough that it did not lead to any dominoes falling, mainly in Europe. I could go on about how limited wars in this sense helped ease the tensions from a larger nuclear war (See Thomas Schelling for this), or that minor conflicts in both Korea and Vietnam helped establish red lines where the Soviets knew not to cross or there will be nuclear retaliation.

Point, yes, WWI, WWII and the Cold War saw our military fight for our freedoms.

Actually, we have fought on our own land.

Technically we fought back as best we could at Pearl Harbor.
We HAVE been attacked loooonnnnnggggggggggggggg after 1812,

Yes we have been attacked, I didn't say that or at least I didn't mean that we hadn't

My point is that the last time our country was legitimately at risk to being taken over was in 1812.

All of the other instances we were attacked, not invaded and fighting to keep our country free.

WWI- We were fighting to keep Europe free from Germany/Austria-Hungary and didn't do so until we were attacked. If we felt that we were actually in danger of being invaded/taken over I think we would have entered long before we did.

WWII-Again same thing. War broke out in 1939. We did nothing until we were attacked. Not because we felt we were going to be taken over by the Japanse but because they struck first. Why did we wait 2 almost 3 years to enter the Eastern Front if we were so threatened?

ptown, I can see what you are saying, but we were trading with everyone during WWI. Yes, more heavily with the Entente than the Central Powers, but both nontheless. Regardless of the who won WWI it could have been a win-win or a loss-loss. Germany crippling economy after WWI was the start of the downward spiral that became the Great Depression.

As SYL said, who are we to say that Democracy is the best? Different people have different ideologies. There is a reason some countries still have a monarch and adore said monarch. There was a reason that Hitler, Stalin, Mao.... had huge rallies, because people supported them.

Writerbuckeye wrote:
But hey, if you want to demonize your own country and it gives you tingles in your nether regions to do so -- have at it.

I'm not demonizing my country. I'm stating my opinion that I don't think that the reason we have gone to war for the past 100+ years was becasue our freedom was at stake. My point is that THAT is not the reason. It was for other reasons. Our allies needed us, we had something politcal to gain, we had something economical to gain....

Freedom of speech is one of those things that is being protected at home and abroad by our men and women in uniform.

"I'm going to take over your country because I think you MIGHT come and take over my country"

Sorry, that isn't justifiable to me. Maybe it's me but I find it difficult to believe that we could be invaded simply because of the defense we have set up here at home and our proximity in the world. We have water covering a good chunk of our borders. Kind of like the same reason Great Britain was never successfully taken over, because it's an island. Or the reason Russia wasn't either because of the sheer size of the country. We have both of those factors. We're not an island, but water and size are both very good defense mechanism.

No, Great Britain was never taken over because Neville Chamberlain left, and Churchill was in.

Just MHO

I'm looking at Great Britain throughout history.

Spanish Armada, WWI, 7 Years War.....I can't recall them ever being taken over by an outside country. From within perhaps in mideveal times, War of the Roses and the like.

If you can think of a time I will say touche and admit I am wrong, but I honestly can't think of one.

I actually can think of times, but they preclude any of the times that you mention and as such would be a waste of time to this argument. It wouldn't add anything.

Speaking of Russia never being taken over...

I wonder if Napolean hadn't lost his panache, and was younger, if he couldn't have pulled it off?
(not saying it would last, just wondering if he could have done it)

CenterBHSFan wrote: Actually, we have fought on our own land.

Technically we fought back as best we could at Pearl Harbor.
We HAVE been attacked loooonnnnnggggggggggggggg after 1812,

dont forget when Japan invaded Alaska.

Glory Days wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Actually, we have fought on our own land.

Technically we fought back as best we could at Pearl Harbor.
We HAVE been attacked loooonnnnnggggggggggggggg after 1812,

dont forget when Japan invaded Alaska.

Touche.

All I will say to this is that Japan didn't do a lot with this as they had almost a year before we got to them. They really didn't advance or attack us from there.

Before someone else says it. Yes there were several times when there were attempted attacks on the U.S. by the Germans and the Japanese, but there was never a threat of a full on invasion like you saw in Asia and Europe.

CenterBHSFan wrote:
I actually can think of times, but they preclude any of the times that you mention and as such would be a waste of time to this argument. It wouldn't add anything.

Fair enough. After thinking about it I know you are right, but I agree with you on the basis that it wouldn't add to what we are discussing.

Speaking of Russia never being taken over...

I wonder if Napolean hadn't lost his panache, and was younger, if he couldn't have pulled it off?
(not saying it would last, just wondering if he could have done it)

I'm going to say no because of climate conditions. Like I said Russia's biggest defense is the size and climate of the country. If you're not used to it, you're in trouble. The fact that the Russian fortresses were more permanent, stable, and equipped for the climate played a role. Also, the Russians destroying everything as they retreated didn't help because it left Napoleon with nothing.

This might not make any sense, but I think he could have pulled it off if he would have started earlier and quicker. I don't think he could have helped the speed, but the timing he could have.

Germany would have pulled it off if they didn't have the Western Front to worry about; no doubt in my mind.

bigkahuna wrote: Yes we have been attacked, I didn't say that or at least I didn't mean that we hadn't

My point is that the last time our country was legitimately at risk to being taken over was in 1812.

All of the other instances we were attacked, not invaded and fighting to keep our country free.

WWI- We were fighting to keep Europe free from Germany/Austria-Hungary and didn't do so until we were attacked. If we felt that we were actually in danger of being invaded/taken over I think we would have entered long before we did.

WWII-Again same thing. War broke out in 1939. We did nothing until we were attacked. Not because we felt we were going to be taken over by the Japanse but because they struck first. Why did we wait 2 almost 3 years to enter the Eastern Front if we were so threatened?

ptown, I can see what you are saying, but we were trading with everyone during WWI. Yes, more heavily with the Entente than the Central Powers, but both nontheless. Regardless of the who won WWI it could have been a win-win or a loss-loss. Germany crippling economy after WWI was the start of the downward spiral that became the Great Depression.

For the most part I agree with your statements. The point you are making is valid and based in facts. The main point goes to this world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Sometimes we have to shit or get off the pot.

bigkahuna wrote: As SYL said, who are we to say that Democracy is the best? Different people have different ideologies. There is a reason some countries still have a monarch and adore said monarch. There was a reason that Hitler, Stalin, Mao.... had huge rallies, because people supported them.

As for Hitler, Stalin, and Mao... I do agree that they had strong enough popular support to put themselves in power. However when that power was centralized in the hands of a few they were able to use it to purge there political enemies by death if necessary. And so they did.

On a side not Stalin is an exception of the three, in that he did not rise to power via popular support. He rode the vehicle of central government power installed by Lenin's Bolshevik revolution.

majorspark wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: Yes we have been attacked, I didn't say that or at least I didn't mean that we hadn't

My point is that the last time our country was legitimately at risk to being taken over was in 1812.

All of the other instances we were attacked, not invaded and fighting to keep our country free.

WWI- We were fighting to keep Europe free from Germany/Austria-Hungary and didn't do so until we were attacked. If we felt that we were actually in danger of being invaded/taken over I think we would have entered long before we did.

WWII-Again same thing. War broke out in 1939. We did nothing until we were attacked. Not because we felt we were going to be taken over by the Japanse but because they struck first. Why did we wait 2 almost 3 years to enter the Eastern Front if we were so threatened?

ptown, I can see what you are saying, but we were trading with everyone during WWI. Yes, more heavily with the Entente than the Central Powers, but both nontheless. Regardless of the who won WWI it could have been a win-win or a loss-loss. Germany crippling economy after WWI was the start of the downward spiral that became the Great Depression.

For the most part I agree with your statements. The point you are making is valid and based in facts. The main point goes to this world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Sometimes we have to shit or get off the pot.

bigkahuna wrote: As SYL said, who are we to say that Democracy is the best? Different people have different ideologies. There is a reason some countries still have a monarch and adore said monarch. There was a reason that Hitler, Lenin, Mao.... had huge rallies, because people supported them.

As for Hitler, Stalin, and Mao... I do agree that they had strong enough popular support to put themselves in power. However when that power was centralized in the hands of a few they were able to use it to purge there political enemies by death if necessary. And so they did.

On a side not Stalin is an exception of the three, in that he did not rise to power via popular support. He rode the vehicle of central government power installed by Lenin's Bolshevik revolution.

Is that better? LOL
I kid, but agree with you.