Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[koshergrl]

We don't take pride in scaring people. We take pride in protecting people who need it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.

Disagree.
Islamic jihadists are an obvious threat to the American people and their freedoms. Anyone who isn't aware of that just really hasn't been paying attention the last couple of decades.

 

[Sunni Man]

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.

Disagree.
Islamic jihadists are an obvious threat to the American people and their freedoms. Anyone who isn't aware of that just really hasn't been paying attention the last couple of decades.

Since 9/11 the only threat to American citizen's freedom has been the U.S. government. ..

 

[9thIDdoc]

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.

Disagree.
Islamic jihadists are an obvious threat to the American people and their freedoms. Anyone who isn't aware of that just really hasn't been paying attention the last couple of decades.

Since 9/11 the only threat to American citizen's freedom has been the U.S. government. ..

Wrong. Jihadists attacks and attempted attacks continue through the present without reason to expect an end while jihadists continue to breathe.

But I can't say I'm sure that Obama's government doesn't also pose a threat.

 

[sambino510]

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.

Disagree.
Islamic jihadists are an obvious threat to the American people and their freedoms. Anyone who isn't aware of that just really hasn't been paying attention the last couple of decades.

"Jihad" simply an Arabic word for "struggle". There are certainly people who want to harm America, sometimes rightfully so, sometimes not. Yet a Jihad can be anything from "struggling" to get good grades or "struggling" to do your laundry. It is not the Islam religion itself that is the threat, but rather the people that interpret it in a certain way, namely Taliban or Al Qaeda or whoever. Christianity, given the proper interpretation can be just as dangerous, or any other religion or ideology.

 

[sambino510]

We don't take pride in scaring people. We take pride in protecting people who need it.

Sure, a point well taken. I didn't mean to make a blanket statement about the pride that the military takes in itself. That being said, Americans and surely military leaders themselves do take some sort of pride in being the most efficient, deadly force on the planet. I appreciate the idea that our military is trying to protect freedoms abroad. However, I still don't think that that's our primary reason for fighting abroad, and I also do not think we are often doing a very effective job. If we are fighting for freedom or liberty, there are other diplomatic, non-lethal ways of doing so. What is the point of obtaining freedom if it comes at the cost of your entire country's infrastructure? Is Iraq "free"? I suppose I just feel that a country's people must rise up themselves (i.e. the Arab Spring) for a revolution to really be genuine. We seem to hijack these various causes for our own purposes. The citizens of the world are fully capable of fighting for their own rights, against any odds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Soldiers genuinely believe they are fighting for the right reason.

I have no issue with that. In fact I hold the lives of our soldiers in such high regard that I am offended when our politicians send them to their death for dubious reasons as my father was sent to his death in the skies over Vietnam.

 

[sambino510]

Soldiers genuinely believe they are fighting for the right reason.

I have no issue with that. In fact I hold the lives of our soldiers in such high regard that I am offended when our politicians send them to their death for dubious reasons as my father was sent to his death in the skies over Vietnam.

Agreed. My criticism of their mission is out of respect, a greater respect for their lives than the politicians have for them. The men and women of the military are far too valuable to the future to be wasted on the battlefield.

 

[SFC Ollie]

i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???

You have much to learn.....

 

[Natalie]

i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???

There are surely many poor, more rural soldiers in the military, but I think this is more common in our past wars, like World War II or Vietnam. Today's soldiers are very specialized, and also are all volunteers. So I think it would be unfair to nail them all down as uneducated farm boys. Point well taken though, as I'm sure there are still a number of them who are not educated, but that's only because they have chosen that particular career course.

they get teached there skill in the servise they dont know to fix helicopers b4 they join and beside how many rich ppl have they child in the military???

 

[Natalie]

I think most of them probably have a better education than you do.

um... so what???

do u want to tell me I am dumb??? go ahead but you hav to wait in line cos lots of other ppl r first lol

 

[whitehall]

After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.

 

[Auteur]

Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.

Sambino, there are evil people in this world who really do want to harm us. We can't all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The issue with Afghanistan is that that the people there do not consider themselves to be from Afghanistan. They consider them part of the local tribes. This kind of thinking has allowed groups like Al Qaeda to set up camps easily to train people in order to attack us and our allies. I do not think nation building works but the only alternative is to go in and destroy the country every few years and that does not seem feasible economically or ethically.

So yes, we fight for your personally and for all Americans. You're welcome.

I can't argue with the fact that there are people who want to harm us, nor would I try to. We could look back at "why" they want to harm us, but that's another story. Let's assume we indeed have these enemies, namely terrorists, all over the world. To me, terrorism is just like any other guerrilla warfare. The goal is not absolute victory, battle by battle, but rather just to make the enemy bleed economically, socially, etc. It's a completely different war, and one that you cannot win with tanks and helicopters. The goal of terrorism is in the name; it's to "terrorize", to scare us so much that we send our brave men and women halfway around the world, waste billions of dollars, and lose most of our popularity with the international society while the "terrorists" sit in caves and laugh it up. We cannot defeat terror with bullets, because it's an emotion, just like love, fear, or anger. The instant we responded to 9/11, whether it's our two wars, taking off our shoes at airports, or not allowing large backpacks at parades, is the instant the terrorists won.

If your name means you really are a veteran, I certainly applaud your service, but if these are my views then I don't feel you are fighting for me, nor are you fighting for the best interests of any of the rest of us, and that is not your fault. It is the fault of a complete misconception of how to fight our enemies.

Anyways, this is simply my opinion, and I once again want to thank you for your service, because my despite my personal views I still appreciate just how much dedication it takes.

You live in a country where you are allowed to disrespect soldiers and blather endlessly about the things you think of because you have too much time on your hands...and the REASON you have too much time on your hands is because you live a privileged, safe existence, made safe by the very military you show disdain for, in a place where you are able to afford the things you need.

In other words, just shut up. You're an ungrateful gnat who doesn't deserve the liberties and the protection that you smugly claim you have no use for.

I think what is needed is more dialogue in the US about such matters, not less. There is a current culture of detachment from world issues, and general distain for intellectual pursuit today, which is not a healthy development.

When sending men off to war, generally a strong motivater is needed, and so the term freedom has been waved about shamelessly over the years for various purpose. In fact, the reasons for the US going to war have been complex, and very often not about freedom at all, but as been stated here, about narrow national self-interest, geopolitical gain, and the support of corporate or partisan political interests. There are a few exceptions.

The Revolutionary War- nationalistic sentiment was combined with a desire to be free of tax and regulation, and hence increase individual profit and gain, and a desire for aboriginal land then denied the revolutionaries by the British, were key motivators.

The War of 1812- anger over the treatment of US seamen pressed into service for the RN morphed into a plan to seize the remaining British colonies in North America (whether the inhabitants there liked it or not).

The Mexican War- The US yearned for Mexico's northern territories, and they took them.

The Spanish American War- Again, it was the age of imperialism, everybody was doing it, and the young US wanted to get into the act. And so they did, and Spain was as good a target as any, an aging, weak, and little loved empire. The US secured the outposts in the Pacific and Caribbean they had hoped for.

WW1- People in Belguim at the time may have claimed it was about freedom, but few others would have, in hindsight anyway. It was an imperial war, fought over basically nothing other than jockying for geopolitical advantage. The US at first attempted to stay out of it, and make the most of the commericial opportunities presented. The lion's share of US money went to Britian and France however, and it was too much to loose, which was a slight possibility by 1917, if the Germans won. And so they intervened.

WW2- Yes, freedom was at stake here. The US did fight for freedom, although they sat out the first two years, hoping for others to finish the job first.

Korea- Freedom in a manner of speaking. The war might not have happened however, if the US had not meddled grossly in Korea's affairs.

Vietnam- Perhaps the sadest examle here. A war fought because politicians had slept through there social studies classes in school. Again, the US could have avoided this war if they had accepted Ho Chi Minh's peace offer of cooperation way back in '45.

Iraq 1&2- An extension of the Mid-East maneuvering that has gone on there since at least the '30s for the US. It was all about oil supplies, and Israel's lobbying.

Afghanistan- Something had to be done after 9/11, and it was clear the actual culprits might be a long time in coming to justice. Some explosions were necessary. Afghanistan was a good a target as any. It was a backwater run by reprehensible people, who had allowed other reprehensible people a sanctuary. And so some empty buildings were blown up. The real "base" of these folks is of course, everywhere- religious schools in Saudi Arabia, hotel rooms in Hamburg, flight training schools in Florida, villas in Pakistan. With the partial exception of the last, those aren't acceptable targets.

It is a tribal country stuck in the Middle Ages, which belatedly the US and others have had to admit, and withdraw from, claiming victory and a job well done, while of course it has not been.


If freedom were the only issue for the US in the world, they would be drawing up plans for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, arguably on of the least free countries in the world, insisting Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, and doing a number of other things that clearly it is not going to do.

 

[sambino510]

After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.

I think it's too simplistic to say that the goal of every terrorist is simply "jihad", or to kill every infidel or something. Just like our own troops, these men fight for many different reasons. America has no doubt made some mistakes and some enemies around the world. As stated in some of my other responses, I suppose I just don't think we should celebrate death, or "beating the shit" out of our enemies. If we are to celebrate victory, it should be seen as an unfortunate necessity rather than a source of pride. Obama has done very little different than George W. Bush would have done. He ramped up the drone strike program in Yemen and Pakistan, and did nothing to slow operations in Afghanistan. He's just as hawkish towards Iran too. So I don't see how Obama is inferior in that way to his predecessor. Also, I don't see any factual reason why you'd say all democrats are sub-educated. I for one don't believe in either party, but blanket statements like that are more harmful than helpful.

 

[sambino510]

I can't argue with the fact that there are people who want to harm us, nor would I try to. We could look back at "why" they want to harm us, but that's another story. Let's assume we indeed have these enemies, namely terrorists, all over the world. To me, terrorism is just like any other guerrilla warfare. The goal is not absolute victory, battle by battle, but rather just to make the enemy bleed economically, socially, etc. It's a completely different war, and one that you cannot win with tanks and helicopters. The goal of terrorism is in the name; it's to "terrorize", to scare us so much that we send our brave men and women halfway around the world, waste billions of dollars, and lose most of our popularity with the international society while the "terrorists" sit in caves and laugh it up. We cannot defeat terror with bullets, because it's an emotion, just like love, fear, or anger. The instant we responded to 9/11, whether it's our two wars, taking off our shoes at airports, or not allowing large backpacks at parades, is the instant the terrorists won.

If your name means you really are a veteran, I certainly applaud your service, but if these are my views then I don't feel you are fighting for me, nor are you fighting for the best interests of any of the rest of us, and that is not your fault. It is the fault of a complete misconception of how to fight our enemies.

Anyways, this is simply my opinion, and I once again want to thank you for your service, because my despite my personal views I still appreciate just how much dedication it takes.

You live in a country where you are allowed to disrespect soldiers and blather endlessly about the things you think of because you have too much time on your hands...and the REASON you have too much time on your hands is because you live a privileged, safe existence, made safe by the very military you show disdain for, in a place where you are able to afford the things you need.

In other words, just shut up. You're an ungrateful gnat who doesn't deserve the liberties and the protection that you smugly claim you have no use for.

I think what is needed is more dialogue in the US about such matters, not less. There is a current culture of detachment from world issues, and general distain for intellectual pursuit today, which is not a healthy development.

When sending men off to war, generally a strong motivater is needed, and so the term freedom has been waved about shamelessly over the years for various purpose. In fact, the reasons for the US going to war have been complex, and very often not about freedom at all, but as been stated here, about narrow national self-interest, geopolitical gain, and the support of corporate or partisan political interests. There are a few exceptions.

The Revolutionary War- nationalistic sentiment was combined with a desire to be free of tax and regulation, and hence increase individual profit and gain, and a desire for aboriginal land then denied the revolutionaries by the British, were key motivators.

The War of 1812- anger over the treatment of US seamen pressed into service for the RN morphed into a plan to seize the remaining British colonies in North America (whether the inhabitants there liked it or not).

The Mexican War- The US yearned for Mexico's northern territories, and they took them.

The Spanish American War- Again, it was the age of imperialism, everybody was doing it, and the young US wanted to get into the act. And so they did, and Spain was as good a target as any, an aging, weak, and little loved empire. The US secured the outposts in the Pacific and Caribbean they had hoped for.

WW1- People in Belguim at the time may have claimed it was about freedom, but few others would have, in hindsight anyway. It was an imperial war, fought over basically nothing other than jockying for geopolitical advantage. The US at first attempted to stay out of it, and make the most of the commericial opportunities presented. The lion's share of US money went to Britian and France however, and it was too much to loose, which was a slight possibility by 1917, if the Germans won. And so they intervened.

WW2- Yes, freedom was at stake here. The US did fight for freedom, although they sat out the first two years, hoping for others to finish the job first.

Korea- Freedom in a manner of speaking. The war might not have happened however, if the US had not meddled grossly in Korea's affairs.

Vietnam- Perhaps the sadest examle here. A war fought because politicians had slept through there social studies classes in school. Again, the US could have avoided this war if they had accepted Ho Chi Minh's peace offer of cooperation way back in '45.

Iraq 1&2- An extension of the Mid-East maneuvering that has gone on there since at least the '30s for the US. It was all about oil supplies, and Israel's lobbying.

Afghanistan- Something had to be done after 9/11, and it was clear the actual culprits might be a long time in coming to justice. Some explosions were necessary. Afghanistan was a good a target as any. It was a backwater run by reprehensible people, who had allowed other reprehensible people a sanctuary. And so some empty buildings were blown up. The real "base" of these folks is of course, everywhere- religious schools in Saudi Arabia, hotel rooms in Hamburg, flight training schools in Florida, villas in Pakistan. With the partial exception of the last, those aren't acceptable targets.

It is a tribal country stuck in the Middle Ages, which belatedly the US and others have had to admit, and withdraw from, claiming victory and a job well done, while of course it has not been.


If freedom were the only issue for the US in the world, they would be drawing up plans for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, arguably on of the least free countries in the world, insisting Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, and doing a number of other things that clearly it is not going to do.

Fully agree with everything you've stated. The U.S. shows much hypocrisy in who it chooses in its enemies, excluding as you stated countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, etc. Thus, this implies to me that our motives are more political than some self-righteous pursuit of freedom for all. World War II and some of those much earlier wars are the only ones that seemed necessary to me, the rest are each one big game putting countries back decades every time, win or lose.

However, I'm not so sure about "empty buildings" being blown up in Afghanistan. A military recruiter for the AirForce tried that on me one time, saying it would be just like a video game and I would only be blowing up "empty buildings". The bombing campaign wasn't as intense as Iraq, but I have no doubt we intended to kill in whatever mission we partook in, not just turn a few laundry shops to rubble.

All in all, a very good point and I agree that we need more dialogue and not less, as these are all very important issues that more Americans and citizens of the world should take seriously.

 

[whitehall]

It's a sad fact in life that only nerds, sissies, communists, socialists and generally sub-educated jerks waste time questioning the patriotism they will never understand.

 

[sambino510]

So in your opinion, Americans being killed does not infringe on that person's freedom? 9/11 was fiction? The shoe bomber didn't exist? Everyone really loves America?

We are not loved because of our actions.

In the Middle East alone our government has been jumping in and out of bed with governments and dictators like a 2 dollar whore for decades all in a bid for control and it has been a miserable failure of policy.

I suppose you think that the war in Vietnam was necessary to protect our freedom as well.

FYI it wasn't.

Neither was Korea or any other undeclared war we have manufactured since WWII

aka Your in the blame America Crowd. It's all our fault that a bunch of Imbred Muslims who have returned to a 7th Century Mentality of kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do arent' the real problem.

We went to War because of 9/11, because about 3000 Americans were deprived of their very basic FREEDOM. The FREEDOM OF LIFE. Killed by extremist like OBL who wants ANY UNBELIEVERS to CONVERT OR DIE.

He was ticked at us because we dared to step in his HOLY SAND BOX in the First Gulf War. Even though the countries over there ASKED FOR OUR ASSISTANCE. We LIBERATED KUWAIT, but FAILED TO FINISH THE JOB. Bush Sr. should have ordered us to Finish off Saddam back then, when we had 500,000 Troops on site. By failing to finish it, we set ourselves up for a future conflict. aka We are so worried they WILL NOT LOVE US, that we don't FINISH A FIGHT THAT HAS STARTED. Which is why politicians screw up the Wars we are in, because of Political PRESSURES.

Afganistan was the training base of Al Queda PERIOD. Our enemies were there, so we were justified to go there to make them pay for what they did. The Nation building side is to shore up current Government there so HOPEFULLY the Taliban and Terrorist Groups will not seize power again and set up training bases there again.

That is the military FIGHTING FOR ALL OF US. As they are there to FIGHT TERRORIST that would love nothing more than to KILL MORE AMERICANS. While you might not feel individually threatened, the THREAT OF TERRORISM IS REAL unless you live under a Rock.

Can we stay there forever...........NO
Will they stand or fall after we leave...........Unknown
Will it stop terrorism...................NO
Could it stop them from training there..............Yes

BTW.......
Vietnam War was part of the Cold War. It was a useless War led by Idiotic politicians. By refusing to FIGHT IT LIKE A WAR, it went on and on and finally was basically lost. Had we fought it like a War and sent mass armies to the North there would have been no way the Vietcong could have stopped us.

But Politics ruled the day, because we set up Rules and Lines and refused to fight it as a War. What would we have done with it afterwards? Who the hell knows. Which is why it was a useless War.

Korea. Again, a War we FAILED TO FIGHT AS A WAR. When China entered the War Politicians told the Generals how to fight it, and didn't allow them to cut the Chineese supply lines to ribbons. Had they done so, the Chineese couldn't have held the North even with a MILLION TROOPS. And because of this POLITICAL BS, KOREA IS NOW DIVIDED between a Prosperous Democratic Government, and a BS Dictatorship in the North that is a thorn in our butts.

War is far too consequential and important to be left simply to military men. They are extremely specialized, and are trained more often to see things black and white and accomplish a specific task. Though Vietnam and Korea were massive failures, I agree, I also don't think a war without rules would have turned out very well. Also, Vietnam was a huge undergoing, we were just trying to fight a guerrilla war on their home turf with conventional methods, and that is where we failed. However, if we are to just get rid of the rules of war, shall we just throw out most of the doctrines laid out by the U.N.? No human rights? Allow infinite forms of torture? I think if our own troops were captured by the enemy, or Manhattan was being bombed, we'd think a bit differently.

An interesting note that I figured out recently, in the Geneva Accords the U.S. never signed the section forbidding "indiscriminate bombing" of cities in a war, so I guess our government is sort of thinking along the same lines as you are, if that's any comfort to you.

Oh, and about the training camps in Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, that's a good point but almost all the attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, and we never asked Saudi Arabia anything. Hell, we could have invaded them looking for Osama Bin Laden, since he is, after all, Saudi.

But your point about making enemies pay for what they did to us on 9/11 just creates a vicious cycle. One day a country, and I would hope the it's the U.S., is going to have to be the bigger person and stop the madness. We have to take a punch in the mouth and say "No, I will not respond in the way you want me to respond. I'm better than that." They can keep punching us and punching us, but they will not get what they want. The terrorists want your fear, they want to nag at the back of your brain every time you board an airplane or go to a parade. And, so far, they've succeeded in many ways.

 

[Sallow]

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.

So in your opinion, Americans being killed does not infringe on that person's freedom? 9/11 was fiction? The shoe bomber didn't exist? Everyone really loves America?

No nation or state attacked us on 9/11.

 

[whitehall]

After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.

I think it's too simplistic to say that the goal of every terrorist is simply "jihad", or to kill every infidel or something. Just like our own troops, these men fight for many different reasons. America has no doubt made some mistakes and some enemies around the world. As stated in some of my other responses, I suppose I just don't think we should celebrate death, or "beating the shit" out of our enemies. If we are to celebrate victory, it should be seen as an unfortunate necessity rather than a source of pride. Obama has done very little different than George W. Bush would have done. He ramped up the drone strike program in Yemen and Pakistan, and did nothing to slow operations in Afghanistan. He's just as hawkish towards Iran too. So I don't see how Obama is inferior in that way to his predecessor. Also, I don't see any factual reason why you'd say all democrats are sub-educated. I for one don't believe in either party, but blanket statements like that are more harmful than helpful.

The jihad aimed at the symbol of capitalism early in the Clinton administration and Bubba Bill dismissed the attack and a couple of years later ordered American bombers to destroy Yugoslavia. Meanwhile the same jihad terrorist network went to flight school in the US and we know what happened. America under Bush lashed out and destroyed the jihad organization to an extent that it has deteriorated to propaganda and threats of murder. Obama could have ended the stalemate in Afghanistan but instead his inaction has promoted attacks on American Military while the US Military has been subjected to high profile trials for things like pissing on the freaking enemy and Americans take casualties without being able to escalate the war. Didn't Vietnam teach democrats anything?

 

[sambino510]

After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.

I think it's too simplistic to say that the goal of every terrorist is simply "jihad", or to kill every infidel or something. Just like our own troops, these men fight for many different reasons. America has no doubt made some mistakes and some enemies around the world. As stated in some of my other responses, I suppose I just don't think we should celebrate death, or "beating the shit" out of our enemies. If we are to celebrate victory, it should be seen as an unfortunate necessity rather than a source of pride. Obama has done very little different than George W. Bush would have done. He ramped up the drone strike program in Yemen and Pakistan, and did nothing to slow operations in Afghanistan. He's just as hawkish towards Iran too. So I don't see how Obama is inferior in that way to his predecessor. Also, I don't see any factual reason why you'd say all democrats are sub-educated. I for one don't believe in either party, but blanket statements like that are more harmful than helpful.

The jihad aimed at the symbol of capitalism early in the Clinton administration and Bubba Bill dismissed the attack and a couple of years later ordered American bombers to destroy Yugoslavia. Meanwhile the same jihad terrorist network went to flight school in the US and we know what happened. America under Bush lashed out and destroyed the jihad organization to an extent that it has deteriorated to propaganda and threats of murder. Obama could have ended the stalemate in Afghanistan but instead his inaction has promoted attacks on American Military while the US Military has been subjected to high profile trials for things like pissing on the freaking enemy and Americans take casualties without being able to escalate the war. Didn't Vietnam teach democrats anything?

Once again, taking random stabs at democrats is completely baseless. Vietnam was a mistake, sure enough, but to blame Democrats for the whole thing seems unfair. For the most part, the war had bi-partisan support. Also, do you not think it a bit inhumane to piss on your fallen enemy? Personally, I think with battle comes a sort of honor, a code of conduct. Yes, we will kill our enemies but we will also respect them in death and mourn the death of any human being, friend or enemy. Our soldiers and their militia are not so different; both feel very strongly about a particular point of view and fight for it. Who are we to judge right from wrong? Good from Evil?

Or how about a sargeant suffering from PTSD to leave the base and kill two dozen civilians? Tribunals are an important aspect of the military system, and keep the greatest death-dealing organization in the world in check.

I think our biggest failure, however, is a misinterpretation of both the problem and the solution, in terms of Islamic Jihad. First off, all the attacks on our soil, including the recent Boston bombing, have been self-radicalized men who were angry about various world issues. The Boston bomber himself said he did it to take revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn't Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and the more credit we give them, the more power we give them as well, we play into their hands.

Our primary mistake is thinking that we can eradicate danger in the world. If someone wanted to kill you tomorrow, they would go to Big 5 Sporting Goods down the street, buy a shotgun, go to your house, and kill you before the police or military could do anything about it. If someone wanted to blow up a car bomb in Times Square, who could stop them? Our greatest weapon against the evils of this world is in our minds, it's to say that I'm not going to let your scare-tactics get to me and make me do something irrational. Fear isn't real, it's a choice. Right now, the terrorists are running our foreign policy without even having to do the hard work.