When's the Last Time a US Soldier fought for our Freedom

[Burma Jones]

Poll question: When's the Last Time a US Soldier fought for our Freedom

and not just our "way of life." The Pentagon Brass doesn't seem to bandy the word freedom about nearly as much as their Chickenhawk bosses, instead, I've noticed they tend to say "our way of life" and yes, I've even heard "our standard of living" as a justification for going to war.

Really, when was the last time our actual freedom was at stake?

I excluded Reagan's adventures into Grenada and Lebanon as too ridiculous - or in the case of Lebanon, too short-sighted - to mention.

I excluded the Civil War because there was never even the pretext of a "foreign" power attempting to conquer (well at least from the Northern perspective)

Also remember, the American Revolution was as much a Civil War as a Revolution, with about a third of the Americans wanting separation from Great Britain, a third remaining loyal and a third just riding the whole damn thing out.


On Edit:

It is worth saying here, as has been alluded to in a response below, that this reflects on our Civilian leadership that decides when and where we go to war, and NOT on the troops who do their duty.

[sui generis]

1. you bunch of commie pinko ass jockeys!!!!

well color me pink

:evilgrin:

I guess liberal educations ARE better than just plain ol' readin', writin', & cipherin'.

:hi:

[Imagevision]

28. 12/07/41...

and even then, Roosevelt knew in advance! Like Bush knew about 9-11, but, that's my opinion!

[Ian David]

2. Does sending in The National Guard to de-segregate schools count?

Also, even though Kennedy handled it poorly, I think maybe The Cuban Missile Crisis counts?

And in Grenada, I think we MIGHT have fought for the freedom of a dozen or so American college kids who couldn't get into a GOOD medical school.

Does Jimmy Carter's bungled hostage rescue attempt count?

Otherwise, I'd say WWII.

But in some of those cases we fought for OTHER people's freedom.

[Burma Jones]

6. Nah, you know what I mean

the sort of

"Oh My God!!!! If we don't hurry up and go kill a bunch of people, we're going to be hauling bricks around just like the Hebrew Slaves, by Godfrey"

or

"They want us all to be Moslems and kneel and pray and make the women wear burkhas and then we would have REAL boring TV and stuff...."

propaganda.......

[Autonomy]

17. Good point

about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

One critique: was the Cold War really fought over American freedom, or was it American (or corporatist) hegemony? One perspective of the Cold War is that it was an extension of the earlier wars of Imperialism, where the major powers competed for control over lesser ("Third World") powers. So, from that perspective, any Cold War conflict had less to do with American "freedom" (or autonomy) than it had to with keeping prices low and putting more money in the pockets of the plutocratic feudal lords (aka owners, investors).

It's a stretch to say that cheap bananas could possibly contributed to American freedom, so claiming American intevention in Latin American was for "freedom" is a ruse. We've seen the same con pulled on us over Iraq. Amazing how many people fall for it.

I voted for WWII, but I have my doubts about that, too. Japan attacked us for purely economic reasons: they wanted control of East Asia, and we were blockading them.

[Ian David]

24. Regardless of why The Cold War was fought, the missile crisis...

if you take it on its own, out of the context of The Cold War, it was in fact a military exercise in defense of America.

Of course, you'd have to ignore the REASONS why Russia was putting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

[Autonomy]

29. I am saying it was in defense of American hegemony

over the region, and not American freedom. "In defense of America" is a bit too broad, unless you consider the Monroe Doctrine to be synonymous with the existence of the US. I am more than skeptical.

[Ian David]

33. Like I said, I was taking the crisis out of context and looking only...

at the fact they were putting missiles only a few miles from America.

I think we're talking past each other.

[Autonomy]

34. Ah, yo comprendo ahora.

:think:

[ellenfl]

3. the american revolution.

ww1 and ww2 were not about OUR freedom. nor was korea, and we know about all the rest. ok, the ar wasn't a fight for everyone's freedom. some people liked things the way they were but my ancestors (including that old reprobate, john hancock) wanted freedom from england.

ellen fl

[Ian David]

5. During WWI and/or WWII, Germany (and Japan) expressed an interest...

in conquering America.

If you've ever played Warcraft online, you understand the value of fighting an enemy before they've destroyed all your allies and claimed all the trees and goldmines.

[melody]

25. actually...

Only about 25% of the population wanted independence from England (my ancestors fell on both sides). Whether or not we got it, is another question. ;-)

[LSK]

35. If Hitler had taken England, we would have started bombing NYC

It would have been only a matter of time. No doubt about it.

[Burma Jones]

4. I would, respectfully, want to know why the person that voted for

Viet Nam, did so.

[Ian David]

7. Wasn't me. But at SOME point we were fighting for the freedom of SOME...

Americans.

For example, the ones trying to get out of the embassy in Saigon.

[sui generis]

30. doo dee doo dee doo

self deleted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4390166&mesg_id=4390283

:rofl:

[Whoa_Nelly]

8. Although I voted for WWII

I support all our currently enlisted women and men. Just as we are grateful that someone takes on the job of being a doctor, a firefighter, or teacher, I'm grateful that we still have people in our country who are ready and willing to be ready to defend us at any cost.

Bring Them Home from Iraq and Afghanistan. One more death, whether ours, or Iraqi or Afghan innocent, is one death too many in the blood for oil PNAC global domination plan.

[Ian David]

10. If they were smart, Canada would invade us now while we're stretched thin

They'd have to wait until winter so their dogsleds will make it over the border.

[RobertSeattle]

9. Doooh - I misvoted

Seems like if DU can track that we already voted it would allow us to revote!

Arg! Sorry!

I would vote for WWII in regards to OUR FREEDOM - not the freedom of others.

[sui generis]

32. d'oh!!!!

was that you? Now I have to go back and delete me rudish commentary.

[Ron Green]

11. How about the War Between the States?

Or as some call it, the Civil War.

[Burma Jones]

12. You mean the War of Northern Aggression?

as I've heard it called in Charleston, SC.......

Sorry, that one is a given..........

[Ron Green]

14. When I was growing up in East Texas, the old-timers still called it

"War between the states" or the "Yankee war;" anything other than the Civil War.

[MattSWin]

13. Cuban missile crisis...

But ironically our soldiers' lack of fighting protected us more than actually fighting would have. McNamara said that Castro told him that had we bombarded Cuba they would've launched a nuclear attack.

[indepat]

15. Professor John Quigley's "The Ruses for War," Prometheus Books (1992)

should lay to rest any questions as to whether our military was fighting for our Freedom in the post-WWII conflicts that occurred before the first Gulf War (and most of us know how the US lady diplomat assured Saddam the US would not intervene and, more recently, about the DSM associated with Gulf War II). What evolved in Professor Quigley's thesis is a not entirely pretty picture of how president after president deceived us to involve the US into one conflict after another, mostly to stem the tide of ungodly communism before a new bogeyman was found.

[oscar111]

20. Quigley- why he think wars sought?

such a fine name LOL

Quigley, why are wars sought by our leaders?

not disagreeing, just curious

[tk2kewl]

16. Civil War /eom

[ThomWV]

18. "The Cold War" In Every Sense

Was a war fought for our freedom. It, however, was little more than a continuation of the second world war. In no war since the second world war was our actual freedom at stake. No country has expressed ambition to take control of this country even if we have been horribly corrupted from within.

[Burma Jones]

22. So, would you vote Viet Nam

as an instance where Troops were sent to fight and die to protect us? Would you separate the conflict between us and Soviet style communism from combat in Viet Nam and Korea? And was the Cold War with China too?

After the Soviets developed Nukes, I don't think it was about freedom at all, rather it was about world influence and after that, human survival. I mean, we did have mutually assured destruction, and frankly, Soviet style communism looked a lot more like a gangster kleptocracy than say, Scandinavian Socialism....But, the Soviets threatened our standard of living more than they did our actual freedom, had they attempted to "conquer" us, we would have incenerated the earth......

[ThomWV]

26. No I Would Not Include Viet Nam

Simply because our loss there did not result in subjugation of any portion of the US population nor was any threat poised to our Constitution and the resulting form of Government. That alone is proof that we were not fighting to defend the USA in Viet Nam.

By the way, just so you understand where I'm coming from in not supporting the importance of the war in Viet Nam, I am a 3-tour vet ('67-70), grunt, on the ground, medals and all of that.

[Burma Jones]

38. Thanks for serving

I had an Uncle that did two tours, came back to Pendleton and was killed in the line of duty as an MP......

[tinrobot]

19. Afghanistan

Bin Laden did attack us on our soil. We had every reason to go into Afghanistan, plus we had the support of the world.

Too bad Bush never finished the job.

[oscar111]

21. "yankees {civil war} thought would get frdm fm wage slavery, free dr's"

is that true?

source was a site about corporate personhood. The one-man tyro who is speaking a lot on the issue, hosts the site. forget the name.

says some yanks fought in the war because they expected to be freed from wage slavery {by switching to co-ops}... and expected to get free doctors and free education.

surprising True?

PS freedom must include social benefits or it is pretty meaningless. A hungry person cannot enjoy life nor fight to keep any freedoms. On the other hand, a well-fed person can fight for his freedoms.

If he also is well-housed, well-educated, and well-doctored, he can fight all the more effectively for freedoms.

[Autonomy]

23. If Bin Laden counts

then we have been in a civil war since at least April 19, 1995.

Remember the questions was "last war we fought for our freedom", not "when were we last justified in using force". To fight for our freedom, there has to be an actual threat to our freedom. Neither Al Quaeda nor the Taliban qualified.

I think it better to call MacVeigh, Bin Laden, and other terrorist groups "criminals" rather than elevate them to "soldiers" by calling it a "war on terror".

[sakabatou]

27. If not WWII then The REvolution or the War of 1812

[wuushew]

31. but we started the War of 1812 by invading Canada

and burning the capital of York. The so called cause of the war, forced impressment of sailors was a problem solved on its own by the end of the Napoleonic wars in Europe.

Was it worth the lives lost fighting the British here in order to protest the rights of a comparatively few number of mainly British sailors?

[sakabatou]

36. Forgot me history...

Heh.

[wuushew]

37. kick

:patriot: