You know the whole reason you have the freedom to post and talk whatever shit you want is because of guys like him right? Who actively fought for our freedoms? Maybe not him specifically but people like him. Look at North Korea, their shit is constantly monitored and their life, try being grateful it’s good for you
literally, because it’s one thing to argue that our military hasn’t always done the best things and we need to change some things and quite another to go scorched earth on the entire military, especially on the guys who joined because they wanted to make a positive change. if good men didn’t join the military then things are just going to get worse babes. your self righteous proselytizing isn’t going to fix anything
my husband has always wanted to join, for all of the honorable reasons of defending the country. However, he struggled with the decision because he knew the government could be corrupt and he didn’t want to be put in a position where he might be ordered to act against his conscience. However, after talking and praying about it, he decided that there needs to be conscious, morally upright men in the military. He works extremely hard and with integrity, and I’m proud of him for that.
I think it’s ridiculous of #3 to call you out for the fact that #7’s bf/husband is in the military but you’re straight up just falling for propaganda #10 💀 the US hasn’t fought in a war that was truly about “freedom” since 1945 and they’ve all just been about straight up nothing but oil since 2001
Honestly all wars are bound to have corruption and some way shape or form. Additionally, the “point” of a war isn’t always necessarily the point of a military presence, #17. The military is waiting in defense, rather than offensively winning “freedom,” that we initially got in 1789. It’s about being armed and ready to protect that freedom, and to defend the interests of the US, which are indirect defenses of our freedom by preserving security.
Okay, and the reason why the US hasn’t a military presence in so many places isn’t necessarily idealistic “freedom,” it’s about political and economic control over those places. If you wanna call that “freedom” then do as you please but I’d never put my full trust in a military commanded by the US government
yeah but no government is going to achieve any of those ideals, let’s be real. But the US does give its citizens rights that people don’t get in most other places. Political and economic control do effectively protect those rights with national security. The power of the military is an important factor in that. All you have to do is imagine how things would be here if the US didn’t actively protect its security.
Except that’s blatantly not true and many other places around the world give their citizens the same freedoms, hell in reality probably more than us since so many of us have to work our asses off here just to make a livable wage and that’s probably not at all what, say, someone who lives in the EU has to do (but that’s my gripes with American capitalism lol). Maybe there’s something I’m missing but the one thing I can think of is the second amendment but it’s naïve to think that we’re all that
I mostly disagree with you there, but that’s not actually the point of the argument. The point of the argument is “Does a strong, active military protect the interests of its nation, whether or not there’s an ongoing war?” The answer is yes. The point of the military isn’t to always be fighting a specific war for specific reasons.
my point was that if you want the US to be secure then you need a strong active military. the US does need to change some things, everyone agrees there, but those things are better settled internally than through a breach in national security. Our specific freedoms and ways are protected, even if similar things exist abroad and are less protected.
Look, I don’t fault individuals who join, but we don’t have a military that acts primarily defensively, we have far more soldiers stationed abroad than at home. And what do you mean by “the interest of the nation?” Like, maybe invading Iraq was in the interests of Cheney and the oil companies in this country, but it wasn’t in the interests of most of us
I think a lot of this disagreement is due to a general lack of knowledge of what our military does and the intricate, complicated web that is world politics. for instance troops are stationed abroad for a lot of defensive purposes, keeping alliances strong, for one. but I don’t know all the inner workings myself and I don’t think i have the time or knowledge to explain them to you, in a way that will convince you, but I can say this: there were a lot of ideas i had about…
the military and things it should/shouldnt have done in the past. When I brought it up with my husband I realized there was A LOT i didn’t not realize and did not take into account because everything i knew was so surface level and mostly driven by headlines. When you do deeper research you realize there was a lot more reason to do one thing or another than you previously thought. bad moves and corruption are never lacking, but people tend to think they are more pervasive than they are because..
they sell better in the media. Anyways, that doesn’t tell you much except for that I have become personally convinced that the US military has much better reasons for doing the things it does than i was willing to give it credit for. If you choose to do your own research or talk to someone more knowledgeable on the subject I think you’d end up agreeing. But rest assured, “interests of the nation,” keeping up alliances for example, are important and require a strong military to maintain.