Why is it called "fighting for our freedom"? What freedom can someone take from us half a world awa

[9thIDdoc]

Saudi Arabia attacked you.

Islamic jihadists attacked us. Pay attention.

 

[9thIDdoc]

But, the difference is that at one time, we fought wars to win them. Starting with Viet Nam, we haven't fought wars to win. We instead "cut and run". We sacrifice human lives, then pick up our marbles and come home. We accomplish absolutely nothing. What did we accomplish in Viet Nam? What did we accomplish in Iraq? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Joining the service is considered a duty in order to defend this country, nothing more. And, if we do fight to defend an ally, we should do so the same as if we were fighting our own battle. We should never ask nor expect, our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die for political reasons, or for us to play diplomatic game while they are dying on the battle field. Once it's decided that war is necessary, then we should use everything possible to defeat the enemy. We should never shelf technology and Hi-Tech weaponry and allow our soldiers to die when we could protect them. No one wants to die, I agree. But we kill them ourselves by holding back the weapons and means to end wars quickly and with as little loss of life as humanly possible. In today's world of sophisticated weapons, it's stupid to drag wars out for months and years. The longer we drag them out, the more soldiers we sacrifice doing so. War is hell. War is destructive. But war is also war, and should be fought as such.

I agree that we should fight to win if we're going to fight at all but that begs the question of who gets to decide what "win" means. You don't get to decide except as a personal opinion. In Vietnam we accomplished the mission we (soldiers) were given. That's all any soldier can do. To me that means we won. Your millage may vary. Maybe the Marines lost.

Again, all wars are political by their vary nature.
War is Hell and fighting is a MoFo.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But, the difference is that at one time, we fought wars to win them. Starting with Viet Nam, we haven't fought wars to win. We instead "cut and run". We sacrifice human lives, then pick up our marbles and come home. We accomplish absolutely nothing. What did we accomplish in Viet Nam? What did we accomplish in Iraq? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Joining the service is considered a duty in order to defend this country, nothing more. And, if we do fight to defend an ally, we should do so the same as if we were fighting our own battle. We should never ask nor expect, our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die for political reasons, or for us to play diplomatic game while they are dying on the battle field. Once it's decided that war is necessary, then we should use everything possible to defeat the enemy. We should never shelf technology and Hi-Tech weaponry and allow our soldiers to die when we could protect them. No one wants to die, I agree. But we kill them ourselves by holding back the weapons and means to end wars quickly and with as little loss of life as humanly possible. In today's world of sophisticated weapons, it's stupid to drag wars out for months and years. The longer we drag them out, the more soldiers we sacrifice doing so. War is hell. War is destructive. But war is also war, and should be fought as such.

I agree that we should fight to win if we're going to fight at all but that begs the question of who gets to decide what "win" means. You don't get to decide except as a personal opinion. In Vietnam we accomplished the mission we (soldiers) were given. That's all any soldier can do. To me that means we won. Your millage may vary. Maybe the Marines lost.

Again, all wars are political by their vary nature.
War is Hell and fighting is a MoFo.

with so many liberals in the USA we don't really stand for much anymore so winning a war would probably be seen as just imperialism or just murder. If we were a united nation for freedom we could bomb the hell out of them to set them free or to keep them free. But liberals killed that option.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But, the difference is that at one time, we fought wars to win them. Starting with Viet Nam, we haven't fought wars to win. We instead "cut and run". We sacrifice human lives, then pick up our marbles and come home. We accomplish absolutely nothing. What did we accomplish in Viet Nam? What did we accomplish in Iraq? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Joining the service is considered a duty in order to defend this country, nothing more. And, if we do fight to defend an ally, we should do so the same as if we were fighting our own battle. We should never ask nor expect, our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die for political reasons, or for us to play diplomatic game while they are dying on the battle field. Once it's decided that war is necessary, then we should use everything possible to defeat the enemy. We should never shelf technology and Hi-Tech weaponry and allow our soldiers to die when we could protect them. No one wants to die, I agree. But we kill them ourselves by holding back the weapons and means to end wars quickly and with as little loss of life as humanly possible. In today's world of sophisticated weapons, it's stupid to drag wars out for months and years. The longer we drag them out, the more soldiers we sacrifice doing so. War is hell. War is destructive. But war is also war, and should be fought as such.

I agree that we should fight to win if we're going to fight at all but that begs the question of who gets to decide what "win" means. You don't get to decide except as a personal opinion. In Vietnam we accomplished the mission we (soldiers) were given. That's all any soldier can do. To me that means we won. Your millage may vary. Maybe the Marines lost.

Again, all wars are political by their vary nature.
War is Hell and fighting is a MoFo.

with so many liberals in the USA we don't really stand for much anymore so winning a war would probably be seen as just imperialism or just murder. If we were a united nation for freedom we could bomb the hell out of them to set them free or to keep them free. But liberals killed that option.

Liberals stand for nothing... with their feckless protestations to the contrary, notwithstanding.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But, the difference is that at one time, we fought wars to win them. Starting with Viet Nam, we haven't fought wars to win. We instead "cut and run". We sacrifice human lives, then pick up our marbles and come home. We accomplish absolutely nothing. What did we accomplish in Viet Nam? What did we accomplish in Iraq? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Joining the service is considered a duty in order to defend this country, nothing more. And, if we do fight to defend an ally, we should do so the same as if we were fighting our own battle. We should never ask nor expect, our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die for political reasons, or for us to play diplomatic game while they are dying on the battle field. Once it's decided that war is necessary, then we should use everything possible to defeat the enemy. We should never shelf technology and Hi-Tech weaponry and allow our soldiers to die when we could protect them. No one wants to die, I agree. But we kill them ourselves by holding back the weapons and means to end wars quickly and with as little loss of life as humanly possible. In today's world of sophisticated weapons, it's stupid to drag wars out for months and years. The longer we drag them out, the more soldiers we sacrifice doing so. War is hell. War is destructive. But war is also war, and should be fought as such.

I agree that we should fight to win if we're going to fight at all but that begs the question of who gets to decide what "win" means. You don't get to decide except as a personal opinion. In Vietnam we accomplished the mission we (soldiers) were given. That's all any soldier can do. To me that means we won. Your millage may vary. Maybe the Marines lost.

Again, all wars are political by their vary nature.
War is Hell and fighting is a MoFo.

with so many liberals in the USA we don't really stand for much anymore so winning a war would probably be seen as just imperialism or just murder. If we were a united nation for freedom we could bomb the hell out of them to set them free or to keep them free. But liberals killed that option.

Liberals stand for nothing... with their feckless protestations to the contrary, notwithstanding.

this is very true. Liberals spied for Stalin and elected Obama. They would want to bomb America before most other countries so certainly they are not much inclined to defend America or fight for American conservative ideals abroad even though Republican limited govt ideals would bring instant peace forever to the world. A liberal world would consist of waring liberal govts( Hitler Stalin Mao etc etc ) each with the best idea about how to perfect the planet.

 

[JWBooth]

Don't mean to offend anyone but can someone explain? But we generally go to a country and has done anything to us and shoot and kill them. My view is that they're defending themselves, how does killing someone who did nothing to us make someone honorable or a hero? I know we say "risking ours lives for our freedom". If Syria came over here shoot at us and our family wouldnt you shoot back? The only ones taking our freedom away with laws are our politicans. What freedoms could the people we fight possibly take from us?

Its a way those incapable of critical thinking on board with the never ending wars where no strategic interests are involved.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We fought against nazi germany during wwI and wwII. It was half a world away.

Extremist islam is also a threat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We fought against nazi germany during wwI and wwII. It was half a world away.

Extremist islam is also a threat.

it is for sure, they have threatened us for sure, they are more vicious than the Nazis, and they could wipe out an American city tomorrow with bio weapons. This is not a time for treasonous liberal panty waists its, sadly, a time for all hands on deck.

 

[jasonnfree]

We fought against nazi germany during wwI and wwII. It was half a world away.

Extremist islam is also a threat.

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Maybe we went after the wrong country? Also, if USA hadn't been meddling in the Middle East for decades, we maybe wouldn't be having this terrorist problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Maybe we went after the wrong country? Also, if USA hadn't been meddling in the Middle East for decades, we maybe wouldn't be having this terrorist problem.

1) they got kicked out of Saudi Arabia
2) we meddled to get oil which was needed as much as air to breath

please think before you post so you won't look silly