My Need To Vent

[lenscreep]

This has bothered me for quite a while so I feel I should just say it and get it off my chest once and for all. The moderators can delete the whole thing if they feel it's too controversial. Anyway, here goes:

A day or two ago a 20 year old from my small North Dakota town was killed in Afghanistan. Not sure if I spelled that correctly, but whatever. So shortly thereafter you hear all the talk about how he sacrificed his life for our freedom in the USA and how we owe the Veterans for the freedom we have here today. I just don't see the connection.

How do we gain or keep any of the freedom we have here by fighting wars on the opposite side of the planet?

If you say we had to fight the wars in say Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to keep those freedoms, then you are stating that those said freedoms would have been lost or in jeapoardy had we NOT fought those wars.

Going over there to fight for the rights of our allies is one thing, but saying we went to protect our own rights is a completely different story. I doubt anyone can look me in the eye and say my kids would be speaking Vietnamese right now had we not fought that war, but that's basically what they're saying when you think about it.

9-11 was an attack by individuals, not a country. No country in their right mind would dream of attacking us on our own soil as we're the most powerfull nation in the world. So in essence unless a country attacks us on our own soil how are our right in danger in any way? Does anyone see where I'm going with this?

Anyway, all I'm really trying to say is that if our country chooses to go fight a war in some country thousands of miles away, don't say it's too protect our constitutional rights here, such as our right to bear arms, vote, etc., as those rights haven't been in danger of being lost for a couple hundred years.

No offense intended, I just needed to say this. I feel better now even if nobody ends up reading this. Goodnight.

[autobusas]

My condolences regarding that 20 year old boy.
I think that you want to say that USA hasn't got any right to fight in that war, because Afghanistan wasn't trying to invade US. I agree completely. Ordinary Afghan people can't be blamed for what a few crazy people did. This is very sad. And wars in general is such a sad and pointless thing :/

[lenscreep]

While I don't think we had any "right" to fight wars overseas, it's more about WHY we are fighting and how the government plays on our patriotism to be able to do what they want to do. There is money to be made by some during war time and certain companies have made billions from us invading Iraq. There never were any "weapons of mass destruction" to be found, but that is what we were told to get the country to back up the idea. Now look at all the lives that were wasted based on a lie. We're lost far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in 9-11.

I don't remember anyone appointing the USA to be the world's policeman. If North Korea wants to invade South Korea, what business is it of ours? Why can we have nuclear weapons but we'll go to war to stop another country from getting them? What right do we have to tell another country what to do? If they want to blow each other back to the stone age then so be it.

I'd just once like our country to say that we are going to war to help another country's citizens fight communism or become a democracy or whatever. Don't bullshit me by saying we have to go to Iraq or they'd come here and I'd lose all my current rights as a US citizen. That will never happen, period. Have a good day all.

[ncox10021]

This is a hard one. I totally agree with you. However, I also think of if you see two people getting into a fight and one is your friend, would you step in and help your friend fight the opponent? Or stand by and watch?

I guess the whole world acts like it's still in high school sometimes.

[lenscreep]

The question isn't as much about fighting or not, as it is about WHY we/a friend would be fighting and/or it we/he was misled to get into the fight in the first place.

Let's say tomorrow Iran invaded Saudi Arabia and the Saudis asked us for our help in protecting their country from the attack. If that was the message given to the American people by the President I'd say let's get over there and kick some Iranian ass and support our troops to the fullest. But if our President said we need to go fight Iran to protect our rights as United States citizens that would be totally misleading and I'd oppose the war as much as possible. Or if they said the soldiers who died over there died protecting our freedom here, that would be an utterly ridiculous statement.

It's all about the presentation, and I'm not buying into the bs any longer.

[NikLovesLeb]

All Western wars that have been fought after WWII are about ideology.
For roughly 45-50 years it was about capitalism vs communism/socialism. That was what the war in Vietnam was about, or Afganistan in the early 80s, and the entire concept of the "Cold War".

Now, as un-PC as it sounds, and people can disagree with me all they want, but it's the same idea, only ideology is religious. Islam is fighting a war against the West/Christianity. consequently, under the veneer of "patriotism", the US and the West is fighting the same war that's been going on for most of 20th century--war of ideas. Therefore, in a somewhat convoluted way, American boys who are sadly dying in Afganistan and in Iraq are in a way protecting our "freedom", because they are supporting the Western ideology.


Wars are cruel and brutal, but they will never stop. So lets not even start diluting ourselves with that notion.

Afganistan is a war-by-proxy--it's a hotbed of Islamic radicalism, and it's right next to Pakistan, which is an even bigger hotbed of radicalism. Strategically, the US has to have presence there. An outright war with Pakistan would not serve us well, so Afganistan it is.

Lastly, and people again may disagree with me, but whatever is being done in Afganistan has been generally successful at keeping further attacks from happening in the US and Europe. Not to say that people havent tried to attack (and, btw, 95% of them were trained in either Pakistan or Afganistan, including the failed Times Square bomber), but we've enjoyed almost a decade of relative peace on our soil.

Let's not kid ourselves. America is a hegemony. Once you begin viewing yourself as a hegemony, you dont have a problem invading/fighting and/or pressuring other countries into doing your bidding. And history's told us that it's much better to have one hegemony, than dozens of countries running renegade, particularly now, when we no longer fight with swords, but possibly with nuclear weapons. It might not be nice, but unfortunately, it is necessary for others to fear countries such as the US and Russia and China from military and economic standpoints.

I personally do not think that any of the lives lost, are "wasted". In 40-50 years, and some of us might not even see it, things will become clearer.

[lenscreep]

"Therefore, in a somewhat convoluted way, American boys who are sadly dying in Afganistan and in Iraq are in a way protecting our "freedom", because they are supporting the Western ideology."

I think you're reaching quite a bit here, but we're all entitled to our opinion. In my opinion anytime you're fighing wars AWAY from your homeland on the presumption of protecting your freedom in your own country, you're wasting lives for no reason. As I said earlier, how can your freedom be lost when the country you're at war with is not trying to take it from you? That makes absolutely no sense.

Many Americans are not proud of their country anymore and certainly don't feel as safe as they used to. That is mostly because part of feeling safe is based on how you're looked at by other countries of the world. Our presense in Iraq and other places in the world has caused much ill will towards us. You really think Iraq likes that we've built 14 US Embassy's there and a military base larger than the Vatican? I don't. I think we've bred more hatred for ourselves by doing things like that.

Anyway, I suppose I've ranted long enough on the subject. I'll leave you with one last statement that I think proves my point from above. There's a travel website that I can't recall by name, but they give a list of suggestions for americans to use to help things go easier when travelling abroad. One of the top ones was "Say you're from Canada". That's how Americans are looked upon by people from many countries. It's now to the point that you're better off saying you're from Canada than here to avoid possible conflict. How sad.

[NikLovesLeb]

In my opinion anytime you're fighing wars AWAY from your homeland on the presumption of protecting your freedom in your own country, you're wasting lives for no reason. As I said earlier, how can your freedom be lost when the country you're at war with is not trying to take it from you? That makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry, i cannot agree with your reasoning. So in the 40s, when Hitler was not directly threatening the US, by your reckoning the US should've just "sat that one out"? Let Churchill and Stalin take care of the problem?

I dont know. It would seem to me that the objective, especially after WWII, of most countries is to fight wars OUTSIDE their countries. The devastation that a war would create on your own soil is so massively bigger than any war being fought outside that they cannot even be compared.

I mean this could be discussed forever. But I for one, have no problem saying that i am from the US. If someone cant stomach it, it's their problem, not mine. I am not some crazed, rabid patriot, and i dont agree with all the policies of my government (and we are lucky that we CAN disagree and not get prosecuted for that (one of our "freedoms" that we take for granted, in the West) ) but i will not be ashamed to be an American.

[lenscreep]

"So in the 40s, when Hitler was not directly threatening the US, by your reckoning the US should've just "sat that one out"?"

Not at all. That was completely justified as we were coming to the aid of our allies who needed our help. We didn't enter that war because our constitutional rights were being threatened as Americans. In my opinion all of our servicemen who died fighting that war should be honored for their service and courage to help their fellow man. None of them died protecting our rights as US citizens though. Our rights and our freedom as United States citizens were in no danger of being lost. To me there's a big difference in why we should/shouldn't go to war and also a big difference as to what our military personnel are dying for. Dying by helping another country fight for their freedom is not the same as dying to protect our freedom on our own soil. That hasn't happened for dozens and dozens of years, if not hundreds. Pearl Harbor is another story. A retaliation for that attack was completely justified and those men did give their lives protecting our country. Hard to make the same argument for Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

[maria la loca]

i'm sorry to butt in but i think it's ridiculous some people believe that the great "america" is actually there fighting for "rights" when it's pretty obvious it's all politics and money they want their oil, and they made up bullshit taking advantage of terrorist attacks and i'm not so sure we've had a decade of peace, maybe in the us but attacks in europe hasn't really stopped
and i absolutely disagree about the need to fear this countries, that will be going back on every human right out there and it's just plain ridiculous

and i just want to remind you that America it's a continent not just your country,

sorry about the grammar