3 ms·

It's strange to me that people still held the view that soldiers fight for their countrymen's freedom. It's not like Vietnam or Iraq were on their way to invade

It's strange to me that people still held the view that soldiers fight for their countrymen's freedom. It's not like Vietnam or Iraq were on their way to invade America in any foreseeable future. Wars are fought for profit of the few, lives of soldiers are just part of the expense, which they try to minimize through propaganda and false promise of future care.

wwwwwwwwww 12y ago
talk to any soldier about this and they will acknowledge that america's security is not directly threatened in todays world, and believe that the military mostly acts as a "preventative force" to keep it that way.
chondos 12y ago
You are taking the term fight for their countrymen's freedom way too literally. Do you think that generals and military surgeons actually fought (as in combat) anyone at any time? Just because an individual did not see combat, this does not mean that they are not considered to be fighting. The spirit of the armed forces is that they their efforts either in training, studying, or actual combat are all part of a unified effort or fight. The for freedom part goes back to the founding. The primary mission of the military is to protect the homeland from invasion and occupation. Though they do other things when there is no direct threat, this is still the primary mission today. Just by their presence we remain free. Do you think if the military was abolished tomorrow that we would be free people 2 years from now? To your examples, Vietnam was fought because communism was seen as in indirect threat to American freedom. Much the same as the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to start a ripple effect of democracy throughout the middle east. Of course with such uncivilized people, with their constant conflicts and bloodshed over religion, stability and prosperity was never realized. The thought though was that democracy and personal freedom (at least in the west) has generally caused countries to become more prosperous, civil and less threatening to other countries freedom and sovereignty.

wwwwwwwwww 12y ago

talk to any soldier about this and they will acknowledge that america's security is not directly threatened in todays world, and believe that the military mostly acts as a "preventative force" to keep it that way.

chondos 12y ago

You are taking the term fight for their countrymen's freedom way too literally. Do you think that generals and military surgeons actually fought (as in combat) anyone at any time? Just because an individual did not see combat, this does not mean that they are not considered to be fighting. The spirit of the armed forces is that they their efforts either in training, studying, or actual combat are all part of a unified effort or fight. The for freedom part goes back to the founding. The primary mission of the military is to protect the homeland from invasion and occupation. Though they do other things when there is no direct threat, this is still the primary mission today. Just by their presence we remain free. Do you think if the military was abolished tomorrow that we would be free people 2 years from now? To your examples, Vietnam was fought because communism was seen as in indirect threat to American freedom. Much the same as the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to start a ripple effect of democracy throughout the middle east. Of course with such uncivilized people, with their constant conflicts and bloodshed over religion, stability and prosperity was never realized. The thought though was that democracy and personal freedom (at least in the west) has generally caused countries to become more prosperous, civil and less threatening to other countries freedom and sovereignty.