"My Son Serves So You Can Be Free"

[LuisDantas]

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

That is what I believed to be true as well, despite some silly rumors that go back all the way to 1982.

Hostilities in Cyprus go way deeper than the Diplomatic table.

I don't doubt you.

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

 

[gnomon]

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.

I think such intervention is better than the alternative.

What operations? Clandestine? Advisory? Trainers? That is not the point of discussion in this thread.

You're just throwing names out there.

 

[Starsoul]

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.

Well said.

 

[Starsoul]

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

Most of are 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.

My point! well said

 

[dust1n]

I take it your American and you live in a republic fought for by patriots. where do you think your country comes from --war. a war that allowed you to be born free.

Eh hem, that wasn't a war, it was a revolution. Either way, war didn't make my situation, labor did.

and a little luck that your parents werent North Koreans

No kidding.

 

[kai]

Eh hem, that wasn't a war, it was a revolution. Either way, war didn't make my situation, labor did.



No kidding.

call it what you want, two sides fired guns at each other for about 8 years.

 

[Sententia]

Well, back to the slogan in the OP -

I am the mother of three active duty military personnel, and I would not put that bumper sticker on my car. First of all, because I don't put any bumper stickers on my car - but also because it would be a lie, possibly unnecessarily offensive to others, and counter productive.

My kids have many reason for serving - but I doubt that any of them signed up so that "everyone in the US can be free." Yuck. Talk about mindless pablum!

And of most people I know that joined the military who are either related to me or very good friends of mine I would add that I do not want to list their reason. I personally tried to join and to keep america free was not my personal reason. (And I was rejected because I once had cancer and kids that had cancer at 7 can not join the US military or give blood...)

 

[AntEmpire]

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 you and the rest of the country would be fecked without the soldiers sailors and airmen so you can shove it, if you think this country would be fine without them ready to fight for this country. In the mean time between now and when this country needs defending they will do what their higher ups order them to do. Have a problem with those orders? Higher a new secretary of war, or go up for the job yourself you seem like you'd do great.

 

[Dezzie]

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.

You know... I had a whole comment typed out and ready to send but... eh... I'm not going to even worry about it. Your comment hurt enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Dezzie]

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?

Eh... don't worry about it... I'm only a stupid woman.

 

[Dezzie]

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.

Ah... I know the problem! You MUST be in a different Branch! :beach:

 

[gnomon]

I think you and the rest of the country would be fecked without the soldiers sailors and airmen so you can shove it, if you think this country would be fine without them ready to fight for this country. In the mean time between now and when this country needs defending they will do what their higher ups order them to do. Have a problem with those orders? Higher a new secretary of war, or go up for the job yourself you seem like you'd do great.

Why don't you try reading that OP again.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you and the rest of the country would be fecked without the soldiers sailors and airmen so you can shove it, if you think this country would be fine without them ready to fight for this country. In the mean time between now and when this country needs defending they will do what their higher ups order them to do. Have a problem with those orders? Higher a new secretary of war, or go up for the job yourself you seem like you'd do great.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you always go off half-cocked?

 

[dust1n]

call it what you want, two sides fired guns at each other for about 8 years.

Big difference between a civil war and a war between sovereigns.

Even then, the soldiers of today have basically nothing to do with my freedom.

 

[kai]

Big difference between a civil war and a war between sovereigns.


yes indeed! there's civil wars ,revolutionary wars, peninsular wars , world wars, wars of roses, even a 100 years war, but being wars are the common denominator.

Even then, the soldiers of today have basically nothing to do with my freedom.

you dont think that soldiers of today have a role in enabling the freedom of others? like say UN peacekeeping? or is it really all about you, because you happen to live in a part of the world that enjoys such freedoms as taken for granted?

 

[dust1n]

you dont think that soldiers of today have a role in enabling the freedom of others? like say UN peacekeeping? or is it really all about you, because you happen to live in a part of the world that enjoys such freedoms as taken for granted?

Peacekeepers are not soldiers. I've yet to see two countries fight and someone come out free. Exchange hands, perhaps, but free.. nah.

 

[kai]

Peacekeepers are not soldiers. I've yet to see two countries fight and someone come out free. Exchange hands, perhaps, but free.. nah.

what! that a bit disingenuous to the thousands of soldiers on peacekeeping duty all over the world isnt it?

i can give you two countries Germany and Britain both free democratic countries? and France ,Belgium,Holland? how about America and Japan ? both free arnt they?

 

[Valjean]

The real peacekkepers are groups like The Peace Corps or Drs Without Borders. The military almost never works in the interests of the people. They're an arm of the power elite and the corporate interests they serve. They promote American imperialism, not peace, freedom or human rights.

 

[dust1n]

what! that a bit disingenuous to the thousands of soldiers on peacekeeping duty all over the world isnt it?

i can give you two countries Germany and Britain both free democratic countries? and France ,Belgium,Holland? how about America and Japan ? both free arnt they?

TO the extent in which those people's are allotted to be free by their governments, I fail to see how their freedom was contingent on war.

 

[kai]

The real peacekkepers are groups like The Peace Corps or Drs Without Borders. The military almost never works in the interests of the people. They're an arm of the power elite and the corporate interests they serve. They promote American imperialism, not peace, freedom or human rights.

you think UN peacekeeping efforts are promoting American imperialism?

United Nations Peacekeeping