"My Son Serves So You Can Be Free"

[LuisDantas]

Of course they are , you have enemies you always will have until the whole world thinks the same acts the same and wants the same for everyone. until then people will use whatever means at their disposal to get what they want and from whoever.

Thing is, my "enemies" are that much more likely to want to cut me apiece if I show willingness and capability for doing the same for them.

That is probably why I make a point of not shooting at them. It really makes things safer to me, believe it or not.

Isolationism is the only alternative, give up all non mainland territories and hope every one trades with you to let you have some kind of profit. Hope everyone treats your nationals with kindness, have no allies, disband your army gather around hold hands and sing " i would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony"

You are letting aside what amounts to the most promising approaches to international relations. Those based on economic cooperation, a genuine desire of letting go of military interventions, and diplomacy.

Why even aim for what amounts to a nihilistic approach to international relations, Kai?

 

[Valjean]

I agree that slogans are pointless but as a Brit I do respect the guys who go off and do what the Govt deems necesssary

I find more admirable those who don't abdicate individual responsibility for their actions or the responsibility to make their own decisions and judgments.


I think the idea that other countries are itching to invade us at the first opportunity is pure propaganda. We do not need a standing army to avoid invasion.
The military is a business and a tool of imperialism. Any foreign threat faced by the US is a direct result of the antipathy generated by our military adventurism.

 

[Amill]

Just a side question, do americans really believe that the US army is making american's lives safer by Invading Afghanistan and Pakistan? I mean do they really buy that seriously?

Kind of an add on to your question

Even if it was making us safer, at what price? How many innocent lives of people elsewhere need be taken to keep Americans "safe"?

I agree that slogans are pointless but as a Brit I do respect the guys who go off and do what the Govt deems necesssary

Surely not in every scenario though?(concentration camps) I find it more respectable to stand up and question authority than to follow it blindly.

 

[MSI64]

Am talking about soldiers who are disciplined and above reproach. Of which I know a lot.
Please get away from the idea that soldiers are blind automatons who do exactly what they are told to do. We understand a lawful and an unlawful order. Soldiers are sent by the Govt, what exactly do you want them to do???
Turn around and say No Im not going and stage a sit in???
Its not up to the guy on the ground to start questioning Govt policy.
We cant strike,Pay is bloody awful housing is terrible No one joins to get rich. People join because they believe they can make a difference or they need direction or they want to better themselves.
We agree to put our lives on hold for the Govt (so in theory, you the people)
Are we protecting your freedoms?? I would like to see how quickly people would demand us back if things went badly wrong. Diplomacy only goes so far, after that your buggered. We dont live in a wolrd of peace and harmony, countries are not going to look at you with admiration and respect when you disarm yourselves.
Sorry dont mean to sound ****** if it comes over that way I apologizes.
In 17 years I have asked for nothing more than I signed up for. I have never killed anyone, I have seen bridges rebuilt, hospitals kitted out. Flash floods prevented and children being born
(one of which i helped deliver)
Iraq and Afghanistan may be Wars you dont agree with, but its the Govt who sent the troops it wasnt the troops policy.
All the references to Nazi concentration camps and they were only following orders is not an arguement for the modern soldier.
Regardless of how you feel about the War at least respect the soldier for what he/she does.

 

[Rakhel]

My biggest issue with the wars is not the war itself but the idea that "we"(America) has to be the world's police.
There are troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been troops in Haiti since the coup, and now we may end up going to war with North Korea. There was a report a year or so ago about how many high school grads don't want to join the military.
So my fear is that with troops so wide spread, protecting everyone else's freedoms and democracy, what happens here when war breaks out?

 

[LuisDantas]

Am talking about soldiers who are disciplined and above reproach. Of which I know a lot.
Please get away from the idea that soldiers are blind automatons who do exactly what they are told to do. We understand a lawful and an unlawful order. Soldiers are sent by the Govt, what exactly do you want them to do???

One would expect them to rebel if given sufficiently absurd orders. To be fair, that has been known to happen on occasion.

Still, the very administrative structure of the military is not really helpful in this regard. More to the point, military are a powerful and serious resource and governments should be wary of using them without very good reason - and people should be aware of the reasons for their employment, as well as of the consequences of that employment.

Not too many people seem to know, for instance, that US Military has been employed in 2010 to build power plants in Afghanistan, or that the security of the lines coming from those plants often became a bargaining chip for local thugs to use in demanding money from the people. I don't have any reason to doubt the merits of the soldiers involved, but it is still a very sad misemployment of their resources, one that ends up motivating the very bandits that they were supposed to keep in check.

Turn around and say No Im not going and stage a sit in???

If the situation warrants it, then yes. Examples:

20 July plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christmas truce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interestingly, the Wiki category on Military Discipline has only one subcategory, that of WW I. At about that time, the power of firearms became such that first became obvious that war couldn't remotely be considered a fair dispute among people being given equal opportunity to defend their respective demands. We saw a bit of that in North Africa during Word War II as well, but it has become increasingly rarer since.

Its not up to the guy on the ground to start questioning Govt policy.

I can see that it is dangerous for an employed soldier to question his own orders during the fact, but it is if anything even more dangerous to want him to have no opinion or no critical power of his own.

We can't strike, Pay is bloody awful housing is terrible No one joins to get rich.

No argument here, but that doesn't automatically mean that your employment is always wise. Neither does that imply that whomever you end up shooting against "deserves" it in some way.

People join because they believe they can make a difference or they need direction or they want to better themselves.

Or they want a chance at a career and/or at paid college, ok. Fair enough.

We agree to put our lives on hold for the Govt (so in theory, you the people)

That is another catch. It is not at all rare for governments to make decisions that we sincerely wish it hadn't.

Are we protecting your freedoms?? I would like to see how quickly people would demand us back if things went badly wrong. Diplomacy only goes so far, after that your buggered. We dont live in a wolrd of peace and harmony, countries are not going to look at you with admiration and respect when you disarm yourselves.

Are you sure? It seems to me that many countries would indeed do exactly that. Heck, it just might do the trick to empty the ranks of radical groups such as Al-Qaeda, even.

Sorry dont mean to sound ****** if it comes over that way I apologizes.

It doesn't, at least to me.

In 17 years I have asked for nothing more than I signed up for. I have never killed anyone, I have seen bridges rebuilt, hospitals kitted out. Flash floods prevented and children being born (one of which i helped deliver)

My sincere congratulations. It must have been a source of deserved pride.

Iraq and Afghanistan may be Wars you dont agree with, but its the Govt who sent the troops it wasnt the troops policy.
All the references to Nazi concentration camps and they were only following orders is not an arguement for the modern soldier.

Would you like to elaborate on the differences? That would be most welcome.

Regardless of how you feel about the War at least respect the soldier for what he/she does.

Of course.

 

[TheKnight]

thats where we differ Im afraid. I do believe that stability around the world in an insurance policy against catastrophe.
What do we do when we see things going wrong do we just sit back and hope things get better?

I would argue that we tried that pre-WWII and the result was Pearl Harbor.

I feel that the US needs to reduce its military budget and to be a bit more isolationist with its military activities. Too much harm has been done. The US should use its military as protection for itself, its allies, and for distressed groups that specifically ask for help and that are considered by the US to be justified in their need for help.

Do you think the people of Afghanistan and Iraq haven't asked for our help?

Completely agree... I personally joined for the schooling... I want out now though because I don't agree with the things our Military and Government does. I don't even care about the schooling anymore. Fair treatment to the people is more important in my eyes.

Oh jeez... I haven't seen that one before. The ones that say "Proudly Served" on them make me laugh. I see what the Military is like and I personally don't know who would be proud of doing absolutely nothing to make this world a better place. I'm going to make one that says "Proudly served for the free schooling". That's more accurate.

...This isn't to offend anyone by the way... sorry if it does!

Of all the posts in this thread, yours are the only ones I found to be abhorrent.

I hate to say this, and I hope no one thinks less of me for saying it, but you are a female in the Navy. You are a person who is not allowed to go into combat branches in any branch of the DoD services.
That being said, your perspective is extremely limited and your ignorance is astounding.

Exactly who, in your opinion, is being treated unfairly? And how on Earth could YOU possibly know that? Have you been on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Korea/Philippines that you would know how people are being treated by our personnel there?


If you feel that you do absolutely nothing, then by all means get the hell out. But do not slur the name of those who go overseas and fight for those who ask for it in other countries by saying they do nothing. To say that the military does nothing, as a servicemember, is downright retarded. I am inclined to disbelieve that you really are in the Navy.

Maybe when you go to work someday, you should try and find out the scope of our worldwide operations. Rather than sitting on your ***, enjoying the benefits the military gives you, how about you go out and get a clue, because you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I heard a while back there were State Department studies that said our interventions abroad were the main reason our enemies were able to recruit new members.

This is true when we're intervening. However, when we don't intervene our lack of intervention doesn't stop our enemies from recruiting members either.


For the most part, the vast majority of military operations are for the stability of a region or to help those that have asked for it. Whether it be governments or rebel groups, our military does a lot worldwide simply because other countries have asked for that help.

Do businesses benefit from our intervention in chaotic regions? Of course they do, everyone benefits from stability.

 

[gnomon]

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan did not ask for our help.

Specific groups within each nation were glad of our presence. Other groups were not.

And the goal of the military is not for intervention for those who have asked for it. We've turned a blind eye, militarily, to Africa for a long time. Our one interference on land their in the last twenty years was a disaster.

In Europe we provided bombing assistance to former Yugoslavian nations. I don't remember any news reports of Iraqi's other than the Kurds asking the US to come and destabilize their nation. Nor that of Afghanistan.

We have a long history of interfering, unasked by the people, in South America. Hell, we sent about 7,000 troops into Grenada to keep some US nationals in a medical school from being kidnapped. Even reports on that incident have the initial statements from the students saying they felt that they were not at any risk during the coup.

I understand our presence in South Korea and Western Europe during the Cold War did keep many states in a stable capitalist democracy. But it doesn't justify the way our government uses the military as a foreign intervention device that has nothing to do with securing American lives and freedoms.

Nor am I saying that such a use is technically wrong. Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991 were the direct result of UN resolutions and treaties, didn't serve to protect US freedoms but did live up to the role most people expect of nations involved in the UN.

 

[linwood]

Of all the posts in this thread, yours are the only ones I found to be abhorrent.

Really?
I thought they were refreshing and insightful but I always appreciate honesty.

I hate to say this, and I hope no one thinks less of me for saying it, but you are a female in the Navy. You are a person who is not allowed to go into combat branches in any branch of the DoD services.
That being said, your perspective is extremely limited and your ignorance is astounding.

So...one of the few people on this thread who is actually in the military is the one with a limited view of the military?
Do you have a clue how that makes you sound?

For the most part, the vast majority of military operations are for the stability of a region or to help those that have asked for it. Whether it be governments or rebel groups, our military does a lot worldwide simply because other countries have asked for that help.

That`s so cute!

 

[kai]

Aren't you ascribing views to me that I do not hold and that you cannot document I hold? Please document that I hold the views you imply I hold or retract your claims.

what views have i ascribed to you? sorry Sunstone i dont know what you mean.

 

[kai]

Of course, if they relied in military force as opposed to diplomacy no matter what, then there would be no point in their existence anyway. indeed !some say there isnt any point to it

Yes, Kai, there has always been war. And so what? There has always been terrorism as well. And rape. And crime. Heck, slavery was once seen as an honorable activity. I lend that argument no value, because it is worth none.

Then ignore it , ignore thousands of years of war and violence ignore the violent nature of people and leave yourself totally unprepared for violence. and slavery is still around.

I am not saying war is honourable i am saying its here, its always been here and it isnt going away anytime soon.

 

[kai]

Thing is, my "enemies" are that much more likely to want to cut me apiece if I show willingness and capability for doing the same for them. so if someone decided to break into your house ? mug you? attack your family?

That is probably why I make a point of not shooting at them. It really makes things safer to me, believe it or not.

It makes things appear safer because you havnt got any enemies, i mean hasnt your country already been raped and pillaged in the past, the indiginous population couldnt defend themselves enough to ward of the invader and it didnt help them much.



You are letting aside what amounts to the most promising approaches to international relations. Those based on economic cooperation, a genuine desire of letting go of military interventions, and diplomacy.

Why even aim for what amounts to a nihilistic approach to international relations, Kai?

where is this genuine desire to et go of military interventions? has military spending been reduced in emerging countries? in the first world?


Is china or India showing a desire for demilitarisation?

 

[TheKnight]

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan did not ask for our help.

Specific groups within each nation were glad of our presence. Other groups were not.

And the goal of the military is not for intervention for those who have asked for it. We've turned a blind eye, militarily, to Africa for a long time. Our one interference on land their in the last twenty years was a disaster.

We haven't turned a blind eye militarily to Africa. It's that a lot of our operations in countries like Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, etc aren't in the public eye.

But it doesn't justify the way our government uses the military as a foreign intervention device that has nothing to do with securing American lives and freedoms.

I think such intervention is better than the alternative.

Really?


So...one of the few people on this thread who is actually in the military is the one with a limited view of the military?
Do you have a clue how that makes you sound?

When I'm also in the military?
Plain and simple, she doesn't know what she's talking about. That she's in the military and would say that is, to me, astounding. Perhaps she does absolutely nothing. But for her to say that the military does absolutely nothing is insulting.

That`s so cute!

I love it when people who don't know what they're talking about open their mouths to speak about a subject.

Please, continue in your festivities of ignorance. I am done with this thread.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Yesterday, I passed a car on the road with a bumper sticker that said, "My Son Serves So You Can Be Free".

I thought there were a number of things wrong with that sticker. For instance, in an age when the US is more likely to send soldiers into combat in order to secure an economic empire, rather than to destroy any existential threat to the US, just how accurate is it to say "My son serves so you can be free"? Wouldn't it be somewhat more accurate to say, "My son serves so Haliburton can make a profit"?

In other words, while the average service member might be of the opinion he or she is serving their country, aren't they at least as much serving the interests of war profiteers these days?

What do you think?

I think majority of folks on both the right and the left are wrong on this one.

Most of our wars were not due to a need for self defense. So the right is wrong it is not about freedom.

It is just to simplistic to say war is only for profit of the rich. This is where the left is disingenuous.

We need to keep the earths resources flowing at a cheap price so our standard of living is high. An example of this is. If Saddam cornered the market on oil by invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The world might not have cheap oil to grow the our capitalist economic system. Our military keeps the West's standard of living high.

Most Americans would have a big problem with a drop in living standard.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is true that many people see no point in the existence of the UNO anymore. It is certainly not nearly as effective as it should be and possibly was once upon a time.

Heck, I doubt it could create a country now as it did in 1947 IIRC.

And that is real sad. It basically means that we failed to learn anything useful from WW II.

Then ignore it , ignore thousands of years of war and violence ignore the violent nature of people and leave yourself totally unprepared for violence. and slavery is still around.

Are you implying that you see violence as a justification for Nationalism instead of against it then?

Because it would take ignoring our history of violence and war for me to accept Nationalism as a good thing, you know.

I am not saying war is honourable i am saying its here, its always been here and it isnt going away anytime soon.

Not if we aren't serious about rejecting it, that much is true.

 

[MSI64]

So we pull out of Afghanistan and the Taliban move back into Power within a year, more training camps and more freedom of movement for terrorist groups and a safe haven for them to flee too

We (Brits) remove ourselves from the Falkland Isles and let the Argentinians move in. Falkland Islanders have a choice of move home (UK) leaving everything or live under Argentine Law?

Leave South Korea and watch North Korea march in within the year.

Pull out of Cyprus and see the simmering hostilitys flare up into full scale War again

How does that help any of those countries???

 

[LuisDantas]

It makes things appear safer because you havnt got any enemies, i mean hasnt your country already been raped and pillaged in the past, the indiginous population couldnt defend themselves enough to ward of the invader and it didnt help them much.

That is an interesting point. It turns out that I am descended from the very people who did rape and pillage what amounts to be my supposed Nation. With some likely presence of Native Brazilians and perhaps African descendents mixed in for measure, I guess.

My very existence is witness to the pointlessness of national and ethnic boundaries.

I really don't understand why you expect me to see things differently in this regard.

where is this genuine desire to et go of military interventions? has military spending been reduced in emerging countries? in the first world?

It is a crying shame that it hasn't in any significant way. Then again, it is not like there is a good example from above, either.

Is china or India showing a desire for demilitarisation?

I doubt it, but so what? Do you think it is ok for Iran or North Korea to pursue their own weapons programs?

I mean, why exactly should everyone wait for everyone else? That is just silly.

 

[LuisDantas]

We haven't turned a blind eye militarily to Africa. It's that a lot of our operations in countries like Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, etc aren't in the public eye.

Would that be because those are largely non-military operations? What is to say, non-destructive ones, that bring about no significant expense (compared to the Middle East warfields) and no major loss of American lifes?

I think such intervention is better than the alternative.

Then we are probably all disgraced. If digging a hole is better than the alternative...

 

[LuisDantas]

So we pull out of Afghanistan and the Taliban move back into Power within a year, more training camps and more freedom of movement for terrorist groups and a safe haven for them to flee too

The Taliban had free reign and was even recognized as a legitimate government for years. It lacks resources and legitimacy. It is only dangerous because it has a high percentage of desperate people with little purpose in life.

What little support it has is nearly all due to Pakistan's fear of India and, perhaps most significantly, due to the trigger happy nature of US (and to some degree, Israeli) military policy.

If the USA played its cards more sanely, it would empty the Taliban with wise diplomatic action and economic help instead of blasting it out of existence - and therefore motivating more recruits and supporters into it.

We (Brits) remove ourselves from the Falkland Isles and let the Argentinians move in. Falkland Islanders have a choice of move home (UK) leaving everything or live under Argentine Law?

Wait, did Argentina invade the Falklands again? I did not know about that. It is too bad if she did. Brazilians don't often take into account that the inhabitants are and want to remain citizens of the United Kingdom, but I do.

But you seem to be implying that the Falklanders are being pressured into British citizenship by military presence there? Is that right?

Leave South Korea and watch North Korea march in within the year.

Does South Korea want that presence? If so, then of course it is a different situation entirely.

Pull out of Cyprus and see the simmering hostilitys flare up into full scale War again

How does that help any of those countries???

Not much. Then again, it is not military presence alone that will bring peace. Having a gun pointed at me does not make me peaceful. It only pressures me into compliance, all the while making me resentful and motivated to strike back.

 

[MSI64]

The people who live in the Falklands consider themselves British, All were asked what they wanted and all said they wanted to stay British.

Hostilities in Cyprus go way deeper than the Diplomatic table.

And as for Africa there have been troops in ANGOLA,RWANDA,SOMALIA,IVORY COAST,SIERRA LEONE,CONGO,CHAD,GHANAto name but a few