How does the miltary keep Americans free?

[BurtWorm]

Or does it?

PS: I'm thinking of the expression "Freedom isn't free." Are the soldiers in Iraq preserving our freedom? Do we owe them a debt of gratitude for what they do in Iraq whether we support the war or not?

[Katherine2]

1. I suppose they would if they had to,

but when have they had to since WWII? Or were the North Vietnamese, Grenadans (or whatever the people of Grenada are called), Iraqis, Afghans, Panamanians, etc. somehow threatening our freedom in a way that I'm too dumb to understand?

[forgethell]

7. I think just

by their existence they help keep us free. Think of it this way: if America is willing to do what it did to Vietnam, Iraq, etc., what would they do to domebody who actually attacked us??

Only a very few people are willing notonly to die, but to cause the destruction of their entire people to strike a blow at the USA.

[samwisefoxburr]

2. I always wonder that myself...

...however, I like to phrase it as such: "How does killing innocent people on the other side of the world make America more free?"

It might make us more safe depending on whether there was a threat to begin with, but free? I don't think so.

[L0cke]

5. Just because

Just because innocents are killed does not in itself mean that we have not been made safer or freer. We killed plenty of innocents in WWII. Not to mention the Civil War and the War of Independence.

[samwisefoxburr]

8. Sorry, I didn't specify...

...I use that phrase for the current Iraq war, and I meant innocent countries as a whole (e.g. Iraq had no WMD). I understand that there will be innocent civilians killed in any war, but if the war is illegal to begin with it makes it worse that they were killed.

[L0cke]

12. Hm.

Illegal in what sense?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L0cke]

17. mmkay.

Wow you're so friendly!

[Dangerman]

46. Invaded a sovereign country for no good reason...

That's illegal.

[mitchum]

55. Enjoy your dirt nap

[datasuspect]

15. looks like

someone has transparency issues

[L0cke]

18. Please explain.

What are transparency issues?

[datasuspect]

30. by virtue

of your posts, you seem transparent.

that's all i'll say at this point, because it is bad form to outright label people of this or that affiliation. and i've noticed on DU they give people the benefit of the doubt.

please, however, disabuse me if i am wrong.

[L0cke]

36. Ah....

I take it by your context that you think being transparent is bad?

I have not tried to be opaque or hide my views (though I'm new here so I haven't had a chance to make them known). I am by nature transparent. Ask me an honest question and I'll give you an honest answer. I consider it a good thing. In my opinion, you all are a bit too trigger-happy with the "troll" accusation.

So in the spirit of being transparent, I'll tell you a bit about my views. You decide whether or not I should be flamed for stating them.


* I am an American.
* I am fairly well informed about the issues of the day, and I vote.
* I have never voted Republican until I voted for Bush in this last election. I voted democratic for all other positions.
* I am strongly leaning pro gay marriage.
* I voted against the ban on gay marriage in my state.
* I disagree with Bush on most domestic issues, but agree with him on the WOT. I don't believe Kerry takes it seriously.
* I am pro choice.
* I am anti affirmative action as it is currently implemented.
* I am an agnostic.
* I was a scientist.
* I do not want creationism taught in schools.
* I do not mind the pledge of allegiance in schools.
* I am addicted to NPR.
* I read both right and left blogs.
* I am not a "freeper" though I have lurked there too.
* I believe the BBC is left-leaning and fox is right-leaning.
* I enjoy debating people to the right of me as well as people to the left of me, ESPECIALLY if they don't agree with me.
* I like to learn.
* I have strongly held convictions, but am open to being proved wrong.
* I enjoy some influence over my friends and family that vote.
* I do not believe the US is evil, or at least no more evil than any other country.
* I do not believe the election was stolen.
* I am an ethnic minority.
* I make less than 40k/year.
* I am against economic protectionism even though I lost my job to outsourcing.
* I believe capitalism is a good system.
* I pay attention to politics, and my opinions are well thought out.
* I am as scared of the far right as I am of the far left.
* I am against the death penalty not for moral reasons but for practical reasons.
* I believe illegal immigration should be drastically reduced and legal immigration should be drastically increased.
* I have faith in our system and in the American people.
* I do not believe Americans are stupid or ignorant. At least not any more than people in other countries. I do not assume they are less intelligent than I am if they happen to disagree with me.
* I am fairly well-travelled.
* I have read both Chomsky and Rand (though I don't remember much of either).


That's all I can think of right now. If you want to know anything else, just ask.

I want to participate on this board to share my ideas and to hear opposing arguments in order to refine or change them. However, I have plenty of people to talk to so if you all really don't want me here, I'll consider leaving.

[BurtWorm]

38. What about

the war in Iraq? Do you support that? Do you think it's part of Bush's war on terror?

[datasuspect]

39. well

thanks for the sane post.

i wish you the best around here, but your bush stance an WOT stance will get you pummeled around here i think.

i agree with several of your points, but i cannot fathom why any sane, rational person could vote for bush.

i'm not saying you are irrational or insane, but bush is horrifying and the complete antithesis of everything the mythology of this country has tried to pimp.

[datasuspect]

41. as far as being trigger happy

with trolls, some of them get pretty high post counts on du, so they are actually accorded a little more dignity than freepers accord disruptors over there.

[gratuitous]

42. Soooo . . .

You voted for Bush, and don't think Kerry takes the War on Terror seriously. Is that because Kerry refused to make a blanket statement that he would blast the living bejesus out of any nation that looks cross-eyed at us, unlike Lil George, who doesn't seem to mind wantonly squandering our nation's time, treasure and talent on imperialism dressed up as fighting the war on (some) terror?

Your post amuses me.

[UdoKier]

3. Its presence keeps us safe from foreign invasion.

There are countries with more freedom than the US, so if they were to protect us from "liberation" by them, they would actually be protecting us from freedom.

But free countries don't usually attack other countries for no reason (!) especially not the most powerful one on the Earth, so I suppose they are keeping us safe from threats like the not-quite democratic Russia and very oppressive China.

But I think the ACLU and free speech advocates do more to preserve freedom than the military, which can preserve oppression just as easily as protect.

[el_gato]

14. by who?

[UdoKier]

24. Theoretical invasion, I should say.

If the military was abolished tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised if we were invaded, we've created so much animosity overseas...

[Romulus Quirinus]

57. Nazi Germany's war machine

arose in a span of 5-10 years. It wouldn't take long for a minor antagonist to grow up into a major one given the right growth conditions.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

4. Well,

It's supposed to exist to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign invasions, but instead our "leaders" like to use it to bully other countries for resources we might need.

[whistle]

6. It's all part of the "New-speak" of the Bush administration...

...fighting to free Iraqis, by occupying their country and taking away all of their freedom. Fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight terrorists in America, but no Iraqis were among the terrorists who attacked us. Battles are with the insurgents (outsiders coming into Iraq) in Iraqi towns, yet it is Iraqi men women and children who our troops are killing and maiming by the hundreds and thousands while foreign insurgents are not even accounted or identified. The mind becomes filled with a thick haze from such talk coming from the U.S. military and the Bush administration.

[NavyDem]

9. What it means to me...

Freedom isn't free simply means that the freedoms we enjoy (those that are left anyway) have been paid for in blood by the soldiers, sailors, and airman throughout the history of our Nation.

The quagmire in Iraq has nothing to do with preserving our freedom. In my opinion, it merely represents an abuse of the office of Commander In Chief.

Sincerely,
Thomas Kangas

[rwork]

10. The bush* people have blurred the meaning.

And people can't think for themselves.It is a difficult slogan to dispute. My local affiliate in Tulsa last night said,(After another Oklahoma serviceman was killed in Iraq)they are dying so we can be free.I get so sick of hearing that. They are dying for bushes oil.So his friends in the oil business will get richer. Just watch and see who gets the contracts for the new Iraqi oil fields.

[DBoon]

11. It doesn't

The military preserves our sovereignty. To the extent that the US losing its existence as a nation-state would harm individual liberties, you could say preserving sovereignty = preserving liberty.

However, with the possible exception of WWII, the US has never come close to losing its liberty due to a foreign invasion. The Civil War did result in the abolition of slavery, however a large part of the country was on the side of the Confederacy, so you could at best say SOME of the military was extending liberty and SOME were not. If the Revolutionary War had not been fought, we would be in the same state as Canada or Australia right now - with essentially all of our current civil liberties.

If you look at the history of civil liberties in this country, they have been extended and preserved by the actions of judges, lawyers, citizen activists, and an occasional brave elected politician. These folks deserve the support for fighting for liberty.

On edit: Our freedom was bought for by the blood of lynched IWW organizers fighting to free speech almost 100 years ago (and many other unsung activists).

[el_gato]

16. You are right

nice post

[Zhade]

19. It doesn't, and wouldn't, unless we were being invaded.

I suppose there could be some distant technicality that would count, but every war or "police action" in the last 50 years has had ZERO to do with keeping us free.

IMIO, the idea that the military "protects our freedoms" (hardly the case - was Hussein going to take away our Bill of Rights?) is dangerous. Our rights are inherent, from birth. We aren't granted them by any military or government.

[NavyDem]

20. Good point

Our rights are inherited from birth. Seems we were under Englands rule until our original armies protected our freedoms.

[Zhade]

22. Inherent, not inherited.

Inherited implies granting. That's not what I said, though I can see how one could misread what I wrote.

[NavyDem]

25. Sorry...

I may have misinterpreted what you meant :P

Edit: I did misintepret...Damn small fonts....

[buckettgirl]

21. I don't think "freedom isn't free" applies to the USA now

I mean really... no one has started war with us, no one has tried to take over our country or take our rights away...
hey....wait a minute....
doesn't that mean that the military should be fighting bush, ya know, since he is doing all those things, and taking away our freedom???
hhmmm... :grr:

but really
when I think of "freedom isn't free" I think of my grandpa in WWII, I think of the Civil War, I think of our fight for independence. No freedom wasn't free. I cost many lives to get where we are now. I just hope that it doesn't go to waste.

[NavyDem]

27. If we fought Bush

We would be guilty of mutiny and sedition. Even though he's not my choice for President, he is still the Commander in Chief which makes him my ultimate senior officer. :(

[BurtWorm]

29. What would make the military fight the commander in chief?

Hypothetically speaking, of course. I imagine some would never cross that line. But what if the pres starts acting like a tyrant? How would people in the military be able to make that distinction, I wonder, when they've been trained to view the president as the ultimate authority? (On the other hand, did the military view Clinton as the ultimate authority? Seems like more than a bunch were ready for sedition when he was in charge.)

[NavyDem]

50. Hmmm...

I really don't know the answer to that. Perhaps I could talk to my Judge Advocate General (JAG) Officer to find out if the CinC can be held accountable by the military in this type of case.

As far as the Military view of Clinton, from my experience, he was given the honors rendered to the CinC. I can honestly say that I almost got in trouble for speaking out against him (When I was young and dumb, and the brain in my pants was the most developed) to a senior. I was reminded of the fact that he is the CinC and that I was out of line.

Fortunately, I grew up quite a bit, and I educate myself more now. That is why I am now a Democrat. I speak up reguarly about this administration, but I choose my words much wiser. I also tend to try to educate our younger sailors as to the importance of democracy, and why Bush is not a good person to have voted into office. I actually even converted one from a repub over to a liberal :)

[datasuspect]

33. imagine the irony there

draft dodging cokehead who sat his lily-white ass stateside in nam because his daddy knew people now gets to make very important decisions with YOUR life.

irony

irony

[manic expression]

37. Read this...

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." -Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950

[NavyDem]

51. That is a nice reference but...

I am bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Convention (regardless of whether the administration agrees). I don't know that I would have a leg to stand on trying to take on the CinC.

The best I can do is do what I have. Inform my troops of the Truth, and then do my civic duty to vote against what I deem a threat to democracy.

[xerox]

23. That is

A loaded question.

[BurtWorm]

26. It did hit some bear.

;)

But seriously, this question has been bothering me since a) the election, when the "support our troops" ribbons on the backs of cars really started to bother me and b) I read a review by Chris Hedges in the latest issue of NY Review of Books (not online yet) of two books about the Iraq war. Hedges' view of war is thoroughly black. He doesn't see it or what it makes humans do to each other as anything but evil. At the same time, he seems to understand what being in war does to the people who fight it. By far, it's negative, especially in the aftermath. But in the moment, it alters human consciousness and liberates the individual. Being essentially anarchic and amoral, it would have to.

[Lone_Wolf]

28. saying they 'fight for our freedom' stifles critical thinking and debate..

From what threats are they protecting us from? No we don't owe these people gratitude and support for what they do in Iraq. The military essentially makes other parts of the world safe for capital investment by multinatinal corporations.

Idolizing the military by pretending they No we don't owe these people gratitude and support for what they do in Iraq.rotect our freedoms or some other noble idea only furthers the power of the right.

[Lone_Wolf]

31. ask the 'Cyber Recruiter' at www.goarmy.com

Ask them diectly at www.goarmy.com

There is a chat function to chat with a supposed cyber recruiter. It would be interesting to see how they handle it. }(

[yankeedem]

32. "Freedom isn't Free"

ribbons on vehicles from people that have done nothing BUT live off of freedom that someone else fought for....

-- They don't want to pay their share of tax
-- They are chickenhawks
-- They won't stop playing Playstation to protest

Freedom isn't free, but they only want someone else to pay the bill.

[datasuspect]

35. ever notice the people going on the most about freedom

are the ones who are either taking it away from us or are complicit with those who take it away?

[gordianot]

34. I like the old line from Kris Kristopherson song, Bobby McGee.

As sung by Janice Joplin. When ever I hear freedom mentioned that line plays.

I think we've lost.

[maxsolomon]

40. on the contrary, freedom is by definition free

if it is the right of everyone to be free, they should not be charged for it. "you will be free once you pay for it". that's EXTORTION.

"freedom isn't free" is just another propagandistic way of stifling debate; "support our troops", "war on terror", "war on drugs", "tough on crime", "do it for the children", etc ad nauseum. no one can argue AGAINST such an oversimplified logical fallacy.

and so the republic dies, assuming it ever really lived.

[manic expression]

43. How does it keep us free?

It doesn't. Simple. I would explain this in depth, but it is not necessary.

[progressoid]

44. See here, this is the problem with yous librals. Too much thinkin

You caint have no freedom what without bustin some heads. Them alcaders will thank us later for bombin them some freedom. Heck it aint just freedom thats not free. Democricy aint free neither. You gots to pay fer it. And them iraqis is payin lots. its what we call bunker bustin freedom.

heck its jus like the presidint says. Sometimes theres too much freedom. you might got to give up some freedom so as to be more free. Git it?

[THUNDER HANDS]

45. the military + The Atlantic & Pacific Oceans keep us free

lets be honest. The Oceans are our No. 1 protector. Our military might has always been a really cool bonus. Our nukes are like desert.

[NavyDem]

52. The oceans keep us free sure...

Those oceans (in peace time) are routinely patrolled by the Navy (Yes, proud member here). In modern times, we aren't nearly as important as we were 50-60 years ago, but none the less, we still serve a function. I don't know, maybe our forward presence acts as a deterent to possible attack from un friendly nations.

All the presence of the world still didn't prevent 9/11 though. I wish that it had :(

[sweetheart]

47. by enslaving us to pay for it

That we have foregone civil society to pay for a massive army of
social ingrates to occupy the planet and abuse other peoples is
of course coercive enslavement.... but repeat the word "freedom"
over and over, and make them remember that the enslavement was
voluntary and therefore, "freedom". Only the free are enslaved,
and only the pure are our leaders. ;-)

This doublespeak would make orwell blush!... its almost triple speak
if not "n" speak. We enslave you for your freedom, and set up
and support dictatorships across the middle east for democracy,
we kill 1000's of civilians so they can be free, and would serve a
woman the death penalty for having a late term abortion, because
the nazi government is pro-life. It don't get any wierder....

[ixat]

48. Depends on free from what.

External threats? I'd have to say yes, it stands to reason that if not for the military, America wouldn't stay free for that long. But when it comes to internal oppression, I don't see what the military can (or indeed should) do about it. One of the advantages of the Ameican form of government is that the military doesn't have political aspirations.

[sweetheart]

49. living by example

The military has been the problem for the american people.
The military created iraq, created this problem with iran, created
the problem in lebannon, created osama bin laden, and are pretty
much the criminals behind the whole mess they're "defending" us
from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds too damn close to a gangster's protection
racket, to call it "freedom". What external threat? Canada?
Mexico? nope, there are no direct military threats, just military
screwups in asia, that are not claimed to be "enemies" when in
just recent times, they were our trained servants. I can't but help
to line up the dots to notice that the only constant, is that all
the really ugly shit happens when the US covert military gets
involved. Then they walk away scot free from responisbility.

I'm sure all the dead people in iraq, american and iraqi alike are
feeling lotsa freedom. That is the only kind of freedom that bush
spreads these days... the after-death sort.

[ixat]

59. Well, it's a stretch to say

that the military has created all those problems. It's like saying that your hands have started a fight. Sure, they did all the beating, but it's the dumbass brain who mouthed off to the burly guys at the bar stand.

[sweetheart]

60. The imperialists did it

Presuming for a moment that the military is just a political force,
with no internal intent, then one could say that these problems we
face are created by global imperialists who are out across the planet
using force when it has nothing to do with defending US shores.
Viet Nam... a classic example of pure imperial hubris, and nothing
at all of military defense. Iraq similarly, the overthow of the
iranian government and theft of billions of their dollars in the
late 70's promoting a hostage crisis, overthrowing democracy in chile, beruit, and all that foul stench in central america.

No the military has been sent way beyond the borders to do no good,
by imperialists, corporatists... and in none of it were they defending
america's borders... just some rich skank's cheque book.

I can't believe the ironic malaise of american culture that presumes
that americans "belong" ordering people about on the other side of
the planet. It is criminal, this activity, as imperialism is a form
of graft. That the military is complicit in these crimes makes them
pretty tarnished.... and no longer any defender of the constitution,
or the serious values embodied in the bill of rights, the universal
charter on human rights, international law, and civilized society.

[eridani]

65. Creating threats to defend us from--good point.

Nice rackect, like the combination veternarian-taxidermist. One way or another, you always get your dog back.

[NavyDem]

53. While I agree with your post in general...

It is a bit of a harsh generalization. We're not all social ingrates :) In fact, most of the sailors I work with have strongly supported Liberal causes :)

[sweetheart]

56. Yes, agreed

I've really more of a beef with the management, and failed to clarify. The regular service person is on what i consider to be
state welfare and training. I would hope that those people who are
making a living totally supported by the taxpayer have considerate
values.

Lets say that the "career" military, is the point of my criticism.
Indeed, the regular folks doing their time in the military to get out
and back to civilian life... a whole different breed of cat.

Welcome to DU. Its good to hear from a liberal navy person.

:-)

[NavyDem]

63. There's lots of Liberal Navy People :)

Where I work, there was a surprising amount of support for Kerry, given that supposedly 70% of the military vote is pro-Bush. I noted through my surveys of staff and students (I'm currently an instructor), that the shift was closer to 50-50%. The older folks seemed to favor Bush slighly, where the younger folks supported Kerry.

I did note that the overwhelming reason given for Bush support was "He gives us higher pay raises". Rather sad and simplistic if you ask me.

Incidentally, I am career Navy (15 down, 5+ to go). I am a communications related field (computer networking, communications, etc...) But yeah, most careerists are not like me in their line of thinking.

[mitchum]

54. It gives us something to do with all of that tax revenue...

instead of "wasting" it on frivolities like social services

"Freedom isn't free" is just some more of that threadbare jingoism that some Americans never get tired of. Idiots.

[FDRrocks]

58. How do you not get it? We are morally superior and more evolved.

Peace means warfare. Freedom means attacking less fortunate countries. How does this not make sense to you? War for peace! Corporations over the individual! It's the only way for individual democracy to prevail! If it doesn't make sense, you are stupid.

Wal-Mart and Halliburton are the very beacons of democracy, and brave Americanw are risking thier lives to bring the ideals of these corporations to other counties, which ensures democracy.

Man, I think I got my tongue stuck in my cheek. Time to dial some EMT's.

[KitchenWitch]

61. Debt of Gratitude

Now, to make things clear, I am and always have been against the war in Iraq. I make no bones about that, however, our troops (most of whom are RESERVISTS, NOT fulltime Active Duty) should be honored when they return for this one simple fact. They are FOLLOWING ORDERS. These are people who, under threat of court martial and other sanctions, are honor bound to follow the orders of their superiors, like it or not. Many of these people enlisted during PEACETIME, not expecting to be drawn into a protracted war for whatever dubious motives our current administration has for waging this war. Whether we agree or disagree with this war, we do need to thank our troops for their sacrifice and service.

[BurtWorm]

64. I sort of understand that position, and then I think of Graner and English

and I think of the reports of the abuse of civilians and murder of children and wedding parties, and I think it's sort of a peculiar thing to do, to thank these service men and women for following insane orders like these. I feel absolutely no gratitude for anything being done in Iraq allegedly in my name. It's not in my name. Not that our troops are morally equivalent, but did the German people owe Nazi soldiers a debt of gratitude for what was allegedly done in their name?

[hollowdweller]

62. I think Canada, Mexico, and Brazils army keep them free for less $$

In fact it's interesting that some of the countries with the smallest armies seem to be as free and have less enemies