By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - "The military is fighting for our freedoms." Truth or Propaganda?

Zlejedi on 29 November 2011
FinalEvangelion said:

Vietnam - We defended one dictatorship from another dictatorship.  The difference being, one was a communist dictatorship.  It doesn't look like we were fighting for anyone's freedoms.  We were really defending an ideology and preventing the spread of one ideology we disagree with.  Don't get me wrong, I am completely against communism.

That qualifies. Communist dictatorships commit worst crimes against their own nations.

Iraq - This one seemed to be more about vendettas among the politicians than any other reasons.  They made a story about how there are WMDs or connections to the Al Queda and people believed Bush and co.    Maybe there was oil interest, but I don't want to get heavily into that debate.  We did liberate their people to and extent.  But, how did this war defend our freedoms.

Having independent supply of fossil fuels is top priority in ensuring your nation independence. So imho Iraq was done with best interest of americans  in mind. Now if the war was made in a competent way is wholly different question ;)

Afghanistan / Pakistan (Osama and Al Queda) - I do agree with this one as it helped defend our security from known terrorists that attacked us.  We did need to bring justice to the terrorists.  However, the whole Muslim world doesn't need to be held accountable for the actions of a few.

There have been exactly 0 succesfull muslim terrorists in America since intervention. IMHO job well done.

Libya - By helping out, we did defend their freedoms, but we really didn't defend our freedoms.  I don't know where I stand on this one.

This was as much oil war as Iraq. Through i still wonder if Nato bombed the right targets but we will see in few years.

People I consider to actually fight for our freedoms are ones like Martin Luther King.  I consider it a self evident freedom to use whatever water fountain is open to the public no matter my race.

Yes but to have personal freedom you need to make sure noone will invade you as we live in a world where might makes right. What freedom do you have when Russia can turn off your oil supply overnight and your country economy will cripple in weeks (many EU nations are in such position)

So what do you think.  Is it just propaganda to get people to support whatever military action we do for what ever reason the politicians have?  I'm not saying Democrats and Republicans are any different.  Many Democrats fight what I consider frivalous wars as they represent the same lobbyists.  Should we be more truthful and say we are definding other people's freedoms from other nations?

Of course it's propaganda - I see someone already quated von Clausewitz here so I won't repeat;)





PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network
Porcupine_I on 29 November 2011

Define Freedom first.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

dark_gh0st_b0y on 29 November 2011

well, if you are attacked, you have to fight for you are freedom


but there's no winner or loser in a war, everyone is a loser, especially innocent and poor people....



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

crissindahouse on 29 November 2011

except WWII it's all useless and propaganda. i'm from germany and i'm really happy that so many fought against us. not that the art how you did it was perfect (what the britains did with dresden and how they did it was horrible for example) but it was necessary for a better world to fight against germany.

but all or most other wars do the opposite of what they try to let people believe. the arabic world for example will only get more radical then they are if you always say how evil they are. they aren't but they get because they start to hate you for what you're doing/saying.

the western world is a bigger threat to them then they are for us. so many panic here in europe for example because it could explode a bomb anytime wtf? in the same time we had the massacre in norway for example which was exactly the opposite.



Branko2166 on 29 November 2011

The short answer is no they are fighting wars for the governing elite and for the corporate interests which they represent.
The long answer is far too much to get into, however many things are not as they seem and I encourage everyone to think outside the box and to do their own research. Free your mind and you and the world will be better off.



 

 

Around the Network
Player1x3 on 29 November 2011

It really depends on the war itself. Lots of today s wars are ridiculous, but pre 19th century, military of one side was almost always fighting for freedom. Either way, military / army is just as necessary and vital part of a country like police or doctors are.



d21lewis on 29 November 2011

"thank a soldier for being able to see what we want."

I don't think I've ever heard this phrase used by anyone, ever!



zuvuyeay on 29 November 2011

depends what you believe in and think about things

one thing is for sure with food and resource costs rocketing and economies going down the pan,i'm glad we have a military that is effective,becasue we are going to need it,it is not exactly hard to predict looking back in human history but i predict more wars but over the necessities not ideals,you'll be thanking the military then i can guarantee it



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Marks on 29 November 2011

Well certainly nothing since WWII has actually helped defend America and the American people. The point of a military is to defend your country, not to go out invading other nations and policing the world.

I respect the soldiers immensely, but I don't support the wars in the middle east at all. 



Kasz216 on 29 November 2011

I would argue Iraq wasn't fought over vendetta's but instead, blind optimism.

The whole "Mission Accomplished" thing makes me think Bush really does make me think it really was that easy, that it'd take maybe a year to fix iraq after kicking out Saddam. So ironically I think it really was a case of "Fighting for freedom." Universal freedom... and that he'd start a wave where the US just goes into a weak dictatorship, knocks them over, and installs in a democracy.

Actually, Bush predicted that the Iraq war would create a movement just like the arab spring... not that I think the arab spring happened because of Iraq, but it's kinda funny when you consider it.

 

"Iraqi democracy will succeed," he said. "And that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."


Vietnam i'd argue was also a fight for freedom but individual united states freedom, it gets a little overlooked now but back then the US had something they considered the "Domino theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

Spreading communism was seen as a threat to our freedom.