Political Crossfire Forums

[Jimz]

A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins

[MG1962]

Quote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?


Just behind the need for a bigger McDonalds car park, and a new Starbucks I am afraid

[agentkgb]

Jimz wrote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to keep me free, though it's frequently used as an excuse to make me less free. The invasions are for economic and political reasons, IMO.

[Angelicus]

The two are very important, if your idea of freedom is not sharia law. :lol:

[agentkgb]

Angelicus wrote: The two are very important, if your idea of freedom is not sharia law. :lol:
Because there was a genuine threat of Iraq and Afghanistan invading and taking over the US. :roll:

[micfranklin]

agentkgb wrote: Jimz wrote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to keep me free, though it's frequently used as an excuse to make me less free. The invasions are for economic and political reasons, IMO.

The invasions didn't make me feel safer either, but I did feel as though going to Afghanistan was more justified. Anyway, you can't protect domestic freedoms by destroying them in the US: that defeats the original purpose.

[Fido]

agentkgb wrote: Angelicus wrote: The two are very important, if your idea of freedom is not sharia law. :lol:
Because there was a genuine threat of Iraq and Afghanistan invading and taking over the US. :roll:

Could happen! It was part of their secret plan to lure us in and make fools of us so the world would take away our superpower magic scepter, and make us take the hair balls into our hearts.
But my thought was that a good defense is a good defense.

[Fido]

micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: Jimz wrote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to keep me free, though it's frequently used as an excuse to make me less free. The invasions are for economic and political reasons, IMO.

The invasions didn't make me feel safer either, but I did feel as though going to Afghanistan was more justified. Anyway, you can't protect domestic freedoms by destroying them in the US: that defeats the original purpose.

Really? What makes you think this sort of ill advised adventure would ever had been possible if we had any freedoms? We have lost them by attrition, and all we got left to defend is our miserable existences which makes us more inclined than ever to accept some of ours killing lots of them. But Freedom does not enter into it, because if we were free, the first fact we would have to accept is that all people are equal. That is the fact which all freedom defends. That idea had little grip on America and is gone completely. So we deserve what we get, and we do not deserve much.

[micfranklin]

Fido wrote: micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: Jimz wrote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to keep me free, though it's frequently used as an excuse to make me less free. The invasions are for economic and political reasons, IMO.

The invasions didn't make me feel safer either, but I did feel as though going to Afghanistan was more justified. Anyway, you can't protect domestic freedoms by destroying them in the US: that defeats the original purpose.

Really? What makes you think this sort of ill advised adventure would ever had been possible if we had any freedoms? We have lost them by attrition, and all we got left to defend is our miserable existences which makes us more inclined than ever to accept some of ours killing lots of them. But Freedom does not enter into it, because if we were free, the first fact we would have to accept is that all people are equal. That is the fact which all freedom defends. That idea had little grip on America and is gone completely. So we deserve what we get, and we do not deserve much.

Well, technically all people are equal, but whether you treat them like that is something else.

[Fido]

micfranklin wrote: Fido wrote: micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: Jimz wrote: A popular governmental and media patriotic mantra is that our troops overseas are there to "Protect Our Domestic Freedoms." Where on the pecking order of real priorities do you believe the expressed purpose is a genuine purpose of military activity such as that taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ThotsNRamblins
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to keep me free, though it's frequently used as an excuse to make me less free. The invasions are for economic and political reasons, IMO.

The invasions didn't make me feel safer either, but I did feel as though going to Afghanistan was more justified. Anyway, you can't protect domestic freedoms by destroying them in the US: that defeats the original purpose.

Really? What makes you think this sort of ill advised adventure would ever had been possible if we had any freedoms? We have lost them by attrition, and all we got left to defend is our miserable existences which makes us more inclined than ever to accept some of ours killing lots of them. But Freedom does not enter into it, because if we were free, the first fact we would have to accept is that all people are equal. That is the fact which all freedom defends. That idea had little grip on America and is gone completely. So we deserve what we get, and we do not deserve much.

Well, technically all people are equal, but whether you treat them like that is something else.

If we actually did believe those people were our equals we would quit calling their death's tragedies when they are murders, and we are their murderers.

[usa-1]

American lingo for under the carpet

"Its new tactics and precision weapons help us achieve our military objectives while minimizing collateral damage." Cheney

"We do everything we can to avoid the loss of innocent life or collateral damage. In a war, unfortunately it's not possible to be absolutely certain that you always avoid hurting the innocent, ...." (150,000 times!) Cheney

"Well, we've got a lot of technology that we can use to target the enemy without going after -- without collateral damage of civilians. And that's what our military does." White house Scott McClellan


"Well, every single target was characterized as a low collateral damage, if any, target." Pentagon Rumsfeld



I wonder what low collateral damage is? Maybe just taking the civilians off at the knee caps.

[Fido]

usa-1 wrote: American lingo for under the carpet

"Its new tactics and precision weapons help us achieve our military objectives while minimizing collateral damage." Cheney

"We do everything we can to avoid the loss of innocent life or collateral damage. In a war, unfortunately it's not possible to be absolutely certain that you always avoid hurting the innocent, ...." (150,000 times!) Cheney

"Well, we've got a lot of technology that we can use to target the enemy without going after -- without collateral damage of civilians. And that's what our military does." White house Scott McClellan


"Well, every single target was characterized as a low collateral damage, if any, target." Pentagon Rumsfeld



I wonder what low collateral damage is? Maybe just taking the civilians off at the knee caps.

Our true enemy is the tyranny of the Euphemism. When you look at both sides of the government and neither side seems capable of telling the truth -it makes, or should make everyone wonder just how bad the truth actually is. May be we just have to say that those people we kill perhaps did not like us much, and now we have put our injury forever beyond them. But this is ignorance of the fact that blood is thicker than mud, and religion is thicker than oil.

We have in command a group incapable of long term consideration of consequences. Some of these people have lived quarter to quarter. Capitalism has totally destroyed the value of historical vision to them, and they see only what they want, and think like children, that if they only reach out, and snatch the king, the game is over. I wonder if I am living in a different world some times. Perhaps it is only a different paradigm. But inside my paradigm a life is still a life, and valuable beyond all wealth to its owner; and I would not consider it justice to trade their prize possession for anything I can live without.