"fighting for OUR freedom", "he died for us" and other mainstream phrases.

[DougieZero]

A young man I went to high school with was killed in Fallujah and the local paper and news did the usual "died fighting for our freedom" bit. Why is this just accepted? We of course are already free, Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom.

Was this used in Vietnam too?... Is this just something from the WW2 generation that has been used for every conflict since?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. yes

eom

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I dunno.... can we be "more free" if we invade sovereign nations?? nt.

[gratuitous]

3. You DARE question

Our national myth of redemptive violence? What are you, some kind of commie or something? Don't you know that we are at peace only through our unparalleled ability to wage war? The only way to end violence and terrorism is through greater violence and greater terror?

[classof56]

4. It's the only hook Bushie has to hang his Stetson on now...

It's his "noble cause"--stop 'em over there so they don't attack us over here and we can stay "free". Personally, I'm not asking one person to die for my freedom, fully acknowledging that many, many did so in the past and I honor and respect them. I also honor and respect the soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, I just mourn the fact that they are dying because of Bush's lies. The Vietnam "line" started out, we gotta stop them there (Communists) or all those dominos (SE Asian nations) will fall and next thing you know, we'll be fighting them here. As they used to say back in the 60s--Question Authority!

Tired Old Cynic

[MattSWin]

5. I think it's dumb to say soldiers fighting in Iraq

Are fighting for nothing. I think alot of soldiers generally do join up to a.)help other people in other countries and/or b.) defend the country.

I know alot of the farther left people on DU probably think most soldiers join up because they're imperialists who just want to kill people.

This to me is just as silly as the right-wingers who think soldiers join the military to serve the whims of warhawk politicians.

[gratuitous]

6. So what are they fighting for?

There are two sides to the social contract folks in the military sign, and that is that their civilian leaders promise that they won't use them intemperately or in service of a lie. It would take an extraordinary amount of courage for someone in the military to say "no" to this elective war of imperial hubris, but there are stories every day of men and women doing just that, at risk to their personal liberty.

The conflict in Iraq doesn't appear to be helping anyone that doesn't have a financial interest in Halliburton, Custer Battles or any of the other war profiteer corporations, and the United States doesn't appear to be in any danger of invasion or in need of any defense.

So, what is the military fighting for, if they're not helping anyone, and not defending the country?

[MattSWin]

8. there's no doubt in my mind individual soldiers are...

Dying for something. If anything they're dying to a.) protect their fellow soldiers and b.) to kill the animals they see blowing people up

I agree the war was wrong and we should withdraw but these soldiers have no choice but to be there.

So I feel that when these soldiers die or kill an insurgent they're doing to at least momentarily protect their fellow soldiers or other people.

If I was a soldier forced to go to Iraq I wouldn't care if we're there based on a lie, if someone was trying to kill my unit I'd be fighting.

I do hate when people say the troops are dying so we can "stay the course in Iraq", really they should be saying Bush wrongfully put them in danger and now they're fighting to keep themselves from dying in this mess.

[gratuitous]

10. Well, if you change your parameters every post

I suppose you can make the case that they're not dying for nothing. But according to your original post, folks join the military to help people in other countries or to defend our country. I don't think either of these conditions are present -- our military isn't helping anyone, and our country is not now under attack from Iraq.

Now you're saying that they're in Iraq to protect their fellow soldiers and "to kill the animals they see blowing people up." Do you then think that our military folks should be summarily executing the torturers at Abu Ghraib, or the crews of the planes who were indiscriminately dropping bombs on civilians who couldn't get away, couldn't fight back, and couldn't defend themselves during the "shock and awe" portion of this elective invasion? Or don't they count as "animals" who were "blowing people up." And if not, then why not? Because they were carrying out their mission under the ever-noble, never-fail colors of the United States?

If I was a soldier being ordered to participate in a war crime, I'd sooner go to prison.

[MattSWin]

13. I'm not advocating murder of captives

Now you're saying that they're in Iraq to protect their fellow soldiers and "to kill the animals they see blowing people up."

I never said our soldiers went to Iraq for this purpose. I said since they were sent to Iraq this has become their purpose in Iraq. I'm not talking about rounding up captured insurgents and killing them, I'm talking about engaging them in battle.

Do you then think that our military folks should be summarily executing the torturers at Abu Ghraib, or the crews of the planes who were indiscriminately dropping bombs on civilians who couldn't get away, couldn't fight back, and couldn't defend themselves during the "shock and awe" portion of this elective invasion?

Soldiers that target civilians or commit war crimes should be prosecuted.

Or don't they count as "animals" who were "blowing people up." And if not, then why not? Because they were carrying out their mission under the ever-noble, never-fail colors of the United States?

I never said US soldiers don't ever commit atrocities.

If I was a soldier being ordered to participate in a war crime, I'd sooner go to prison.

Soldiers can commit war crimes in even the most legitimate wars. Fighting in Iraq itself isn't a war crime.

[Igel]

11. I'll but in with a quirky question.

It's early 1943.

What are we fighting for? A free France? I doubt the Vichy government would say so. Free Poland? The first few years of the war, and the 45 years after it say no. A free Italy? To protect Britain? A free Germany? To protect the US from German invasion? Help Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands ... ? Free the Czechs? Help the Soviets?

The best answer: to restore a non-pro-German French regime (I'm not sure we much care about the Netherlands, Belgium, or even Denmark) and protect an ally, Britain. To restore trade, including in oil.

Many many tens of thousands dead, gobs o' ational debt.

At least with Japan we were attacked. However, in *retrospect*, we have lots and lots of answers even for the European front.

The answer to "Why are we fighting?" is almost always rendered in the past tense, and the reasons given at the time frequently reduced in importance.

[mwb970]

7. If they fight and nothing is gained, they fought for nothing.

Right?

[MattSWin]

9. not really...

Overall mission, you're right but not individual successes, yes.

For instance if a soldier in Iraq dies in order to protect members of his/her unit from being killed they sure didn't die for nothing.

[Bluebear]

14. "I know alot of the farther left people on DU probably think....

most soldiers join up because they're imperialists who just want to kill people."

How do you "know" this? I have never seen that sentiment displayed here. Ever.

[wli]

12. If they were fighting for our freedom...

They'd be marching on the White House and Capitol Hill (not that I endorse such a thing).