Are US soilders deing for "our freedom"?

[QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"To be free, you need to be free from terrorism."

That is absolutely 100% not the definition or requirements of freedom. By the way, Iraq had practically ZERO terrorism prior to the war...

dnuggs40

My statement makes perfect sense and I agree things aren't working out the way we hoped for. We underestimeated the number of terrorists and terrorist wanna-bees when the war started. And, the civil disputes that are also going on. But, that doesn't mean we should go into retreat mode and stop fighting for freedom from terrorism for us or them.

No, it doesn't make sense. I suggest you look up freedom in the dictionary. Also, I suggest you read what the framers of our constitutions though on the subject. For instance, I will reiterate something sSubZeroSs already posted:

""Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

I repeat to be free, you need to be free from terrorism. That's mystatement and it makes perfect sense. If you think you can be free, while letting terrorism go on as it pleases, than say so. If you think that the US government is more oppresive to you than the threat of terrorism, I disagree with that also.

"To be free, you need to be free from terrorism."

That is absolutely 100% not the definition or requirements of freedom. By the way, Iraq had practically ZERO terrorism prior to the war...

dnuggs40

WTF are you talking about? That's the stupidest statement I ever heard. There was always terrorism and always will be terrorism.

Winning a war wil not pacify nor end the practice of terrorism. It will not stop a man from going into a school with a bomb or a gun or whateverand assaulting the teachers and kids. Winning a war won't stop a man from entering a bank then taking several hostage and assaulting several others. It doesn't matter what color you are or where you live terror is terror. We don't call it terrorism stateside unless a foreigner is conductingthe act of terror. For everyone else it's called menacing.

Every war has been instigatedby andfull of terrorism, so no person will ever be free from terrorists.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"To be free, you need to be free from terrorism."

That is absolutely 100% not the definition or requirements of freedom. By the way, Iraq had practically ZERO terrorism prior to the war...

FPSGunnerDude

My statement makes perfect sense and I agree things aren't working out the way we hoped for. We underestimeated the number of terrorists and terrorist wanna-bees when the war started. And, the civil disputes that are also going on. But, that doesn't mean we should go into retreat mode and stop fighting for freedom from terrorism for us or them.

No, it doesn't make sense. I suggest you look up freedom in the dictionary. Also, I suggest you read what the framers of our constitutions though on the subject. For instance, I will reiterate something sSubZeroSs already posted:

""Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

I repeat to be free, you need to be free from terrorism. That's mystatement and it makes perfect sense. If you think you can be free, while letting terrorism go on as it pleases, than say so. If you think that the US government is more oppresive to you than the threat of terrorism, I disagree with that also.

Nobody says anyting about letting terrorism "go on as it pleases". That's a cop out. I am just not willing to give up my personal freedoms and protections in order to fight it. We should fight it the best way we can, without infringing on the citizens constitutionaly given rights.

And no, it doesn't make perfect sense, becuase you can NEVER be completely free of terrorism. It's absolutely impossible. Whether it is domestic or abroad, there is always someone willing to do something terrible. There has been terrorism in the world (and in the US) since man first started recording history.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"To be free, you need to be free from terrorism."

That is absolutely 100% not the definition or requirements of freedom. By the way, Iraq had practically ZERO terrorism prior to the war...

MagnumPI

WTF are you talking about? That's the stupidest statement I ever heard. There was always terrorism and always will be terrorism.

Winning a war wil not pacify nor end the practice of terrorism. It will not stop a man from going into a school with a bomb or a gun or whateverand assaulting the teachers and kids. Winning a war won't stop a man from entering a bank then taking several hostage and assaulting several others. It doesn't matter what color you are or where you live terror is terror. We don't call it terrorism stateside unless a foreigner is conductingthe act of terror. For everyone else it's called menacing.

Every war has been instigatedby andfull of terrorism, so no person will ever be free from terrorists.

Are you talking to me?

Nobody says anyting about letting terrorism "go on as it pleases". That's a cop out. I am just not willing to give up my personal freedoms and protections in order to fight it. We should fight it the best way we can, without infringing on the citizens constitutionaly given rights.

And no, it doesn't make perfect sense, becuase you can NEVER be completely free of terrorism. It's absolutely impossible. Whether it is domestic or abroad, there is always someone willing to do something terrible. There has been terrorism in the world (and in the US) since man first started recording history.

dnuggs40

I'm not willing to give up all my freedoms to the government either. But, the fact is the US was more free prior to 911, because there wasn't a huge threat of terrorism. Now there is a threat of terrorism and it's worldwide. So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppresion from terrorism. And to be free, your government can't restrict freedoms too much and become oppressive either, but I don't think that is the case as of now. Everyone has an opinion and that's what mine is. Some people in the mideast seem to believe the opposite. To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree.

Oh, and yes you can't be 100% free of terrorism or oppression from terrorism and we certainly aren't now after 911. So you at least need to be "relatively" free from terrorism to be free.

[QUOTE="lovemenow"]WTF you set it up as a question then Ram you view down our throats..shame my friend shame..and yes they are my sister's in the army....if they weren't over there keeping **** hole terrorist at bay you wouldn't be saying that..but like everyone else in the mainstream you see politics before realitysSubZerOo

No one is saying that the soldiers are doing a bad job etc etc.. This is pure political, and no they are not fighting for our freedoms.. We are in iraq that had nothing to do with in our freedoms.. On the contrary sense 9/11 our government has stripped away alot of our rights.. Infact 95% of the attacks in Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks from the terrorist group on 9/11.. WE ARE NOW ARMING those extremists in agreement to go after AQ.. Pure genious I know.

And this is why you arent an officer in the military. There is more to war than fighting for the holy cause of "freedom" and "liberty". To secure said things sometimes requires securing other things as well.

For example, to secure our security against major organized terrorism we need to stabalize the middle east. To do this requires control and stabalization over Iraq, which is a strategic location for more operations against Terror houses such as Iran. It also contains valuable resources, and while we ourselves dont necessarily need it, we dont want that being fed to our enemies.

And again, D-Day at WW2 wasnt this holy "Fight to destroy the nazi's" crap either. That was a lie to keep the support for the war. Does that mean the war was bad? No, the invasion was to prevent Soviet Russia from gaining too much territory during it's attack on Germany. Had we not gone in the soviets could have ended up controling 3/4'th of Europe. So the war was still worth dying over, but the public was lead to believe it was for other reasons to maintain support.

I believe the same issue with Iraq. There were no nukes, does that make the war any less worthy of dying over? No it doesnt, it's still worth fighting for. Iraq is quite a strategic position of territorry and resources needed to help further stabalize the region.

[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="lovemenow"]WTF you set it up as a question then Ram you view down our throats..shame my friend shame..and yes they are my sister's in the army....if they weren't over there keeping **** hole terrorist at bay you wouldn't be saying that..but like everyone else in the mainstream you see politics before realitysSubZerOo

No one is saying that the soldiers are doing a bad job etc etc.. This is pure political, and no they are not fighting for our freedoms.. We are in iraq that had nothing to do with in our freedoms.. On the contrary sense 9/11 our government has stripped away alot of our rights.. Infact 95% of the attacks in Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks from the terrorist group on 9/11.. WE ARE NOW ARMING those extremists in agreement to go after AQ.. Pure genious I know.

who said it has to be from terrorist groups:|..a single person trying to strike fear into people by blowing himself up using terrorist tactics is enough..the soldiers are fighting for our freedom..and what freedom has been taken away from you personally..what cant you do that you've been doing before??? i doubt your daily life has changed much from the occasional granny search at the airport..and were not arming the terrorist where seeking out the moderate Muslims who are sick of the crap that the terrorist are doing...iraq had much to do with our freedoms because we initially went in there to find WMD that could have been used against us..obviously we failed in that but in the midst of it a new threat formed and now we must face it or it'll come to us..

Yep keep saying that to your self.. After all arming our enemies of our enemies worked so well with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Yeah lol right, I guess these terrorists are simpletons that can't remotely be in two places at once.. This is the thinking and logic of a 5 year old.. Terrorism has infact increased and become stronger with our invasion in Iraq.. If anything AQ is saying thank you to the US because they never had so many people turn out for their group before.

Its so working too, oh thats why we have not even caught Bin Ladin yet.. Hell we let him slip away from pulling troops in a zone with no real excuse that seemed legit other then incompetence.

yeah wow thats great.i will ..because i understand people are sick of this crap and are ready to fight back..im sure if we give them weapons they might screw us over in the future which is WHY THEY ARE STILL CONSIDERING IT..i just wanted you to know who they were seeking out...because the way you put it was as if they had already gave them weapons without taking that into account...but wait you say we increase terrorism..hmm i guess thats what happens when you fight a bunch of phsycos extremists..because that all i can draw from it...if we wasn't there saddam would be killing people, and other terrorist in different regions would be killing Jews and their own innocent people..and lets not forget plotting to kill us over here..you have the logic of an 3 year old if you think terrorism is or fault or the increase of it..and the attention span of one because you only responded to one part of my post completely dodging others points like. what fredoms were takin from you and the fact that terrorism is going on in iraq

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

Nobody says anyting about letting terrorism "go on as it pleases". That's a cop out. I am just not willing to give up my personal freedoms and protections in order to fight it. We should fight it the best way we can, without infringing on the citizens constitutionaly given rights.

And no, it doesn't make perfect sense, becuase you can NEVER be completely free of terrorism. It's absolutely impossible. Whether it is domestic or abroad, there is always someone willing to do something terrible. There has been terrorism in the world (and in the US) since man first started recording history.

FPSGunnerDude

I'm not willing to give up all my freedoms to the government either. But, the fact is the US was more free prior to 911, because there wasn't a huge threat of terrorism. Now there is a threat of terrorism and it's worldwide. So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppresion from terrorism. And to be free, your government can't restrict freedoms too much and become oppressive either, but I don't think that is the case as of now. Everyone has an opinion and that's what mine is. Some people in the mideast seem to believe the opposite. To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree.

Oh, and yes you can't be 100% free of terrorism or oppression from terrorism and we certainly aren't now after 911. So you at least need to be "relatively" free from terrorism to be free.

How did the threat of terrorism make us less free? It made us less safe, but not any less free. And the ONLY freedoms that were infringed upon was by our own government. They are the absolute only threat to our constitutional freedoms.

And your statement does not stand, because it does notmake sense and is an impossibility. Nobody here in the USA is oppressed by terrorism.

"To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree."

You don't even understand their ideology what-so-ever. In their eyes the terrorism is a means to an end, NOT their ideology regarding freedom.

"So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppression from terrorism."

Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with oppression. In fact, terrorism is usually the RESULT of oppression, NOT the cause.

They're dieing to control Middle East. That means :

- Oil $$$
- More Allies
- Less Ennemies

That's it. Maybe some of them really believe they are saving us and that's why they fight, but it's not why they are sent there.

[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="lovemenow"]WTF you set it up as a question then Ram you view down our throats..shame my friend shame..and yes they are my sister's in the army....if they weren't over there keeping **** hole terrorist at bay you wouldn't be saying that..but like everyone else in the mainstream you see politics before realitydnuggs40

No one is saying that the soldiers are doing a bad job etc etc.. This is pure political, and no they are not fighting for our freedoms.. We are in iraq that had nothing to do with in our freedoms.. On the contrary sense 9/11 our government has stripped away alot of our rights.. Infact 95% of the attacks in Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks from the terrorist group on 9/11.. WE ARE NOW ARMING those extremists in agreement to go after AQ.. Pure genious I know.

who said it has to be from terrorist groups:|..a single person trying to strike fear into people by blowing himself up using terrorist tactics is enough..the soldiers are fighting for our freedom..and what freedom has been taken away from you personally..what cant you do that you've been doing before??? i doubt your daily life has changed much from the occasional granny search at the airport..and were not arming the terrorist where seeking out the moderate Muslims who are sick of the crap that the terrorist are doing...iraq had much to do with our freedoms because we initially went in there to find WMD that could have been used against us..obviously we failed in that but in the midst of it a new threat formed and now we must face it or it'll come to us..

He already listed the freedoms being trampled on, and mind you, these are constitutionally garunteed rights. So what if you can't immediatly feel the ramifications of these infringements? Does that mean you didn't loose any freedom garunteed by the constitution? Heck no! Of course you did. The framers of the constitution puts those garuntees in for a reason. And not to mention, any person familar with history can tell you this is the EXACT method in taking away greater freedoms. They don't just take everything away immediatly, but rather start by taking away your protections, THEN they can remove more and more freedoms. It's a very slippery slope we have started on.

Also, your evaluation of Iraq is waaay off. We are not arming moderates, we are arming Sunni militias and dissidents. Iraq had nothing to do with our freedom. The WMD claim is bogus, and even IF they were there, there is absolute 100% ZERO proof they planned on using it against us.

What freedoms did he list?? ..i must have missed them in the clutter of crap inhis post:|...and i clearly said that WMDs were not found,and yeah of course saddam wasn't gonna be stupid enough to use them against us no he'll just sell them to terrorist like Iran's selling weapons to terrorist and in turn they'll be used on us..he'll just use the left over stock to kill more kurds:)...and your right we are CONSIDERING ARMING SUNNIS i was wrong on the moderate crap.but just know we haven't did it yet..and why don't you tell me how your life has changed what freedom you've lost in this war, i mean you make it seem as if were loosing soo much freedom, please tell me

In Iraq, no. This war has nothing to do with freedom. The real result of Iraq is the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no respect for those soldiers.espoac

That's a gross exaggeration. Aside from the extra zerosyou don't actually know which were innocent and which were not. Just because they didn't have weapons on them the day they were killed doesn't mean they weren't the enemy.

Don't blame the soldiers. There's a reason they are regimented into NonCommissioned and Commissioned Officers. So there is a system of I Say... You do.Aside from that the opposition hides amongst the civilians so you must expect civilian casualties. It's unfortunate, but rebels alwaysdrag them into the center of the crossfire. Not literally, but they create situation in which the civillians serve as human shields. They think U.S forces won't open fire, but when you're being fired upon you either return fire or die.

The rebels don't care about the safety of those people. They put the civilians in danger which results insome of the civilians getting killed. They cause it and the results create some propaganda for the enemy.

Like the civilians are completely ignorant of the situation. Supposed, presumed civilians. You don't really know who the enemy is until they become an active threat or expose their hostile intentions. Until then they seem to be a civilian.

Many soldiers are stupid and make stupid decisions or go renegade or roguewhich results in uneceesary death or destruction. But that occurs in every miltary.But those many are a small percentage of the majority. **** happens.

[QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

Nobody says anyting about letting terrorism "go on as it pleases". That's a cop out. I am just not willing to give up my personal freedoms and protections in order to fight it. We should fight it the best way we can, without infringing on the citizens constitutionaly given rights.

And no, it doesn't make perfect sense, becuase you can NEVER be completely free of terrorism. It's absolutely impossible. Whether it is domestic or abroad, there is always someone willing to do something terrible. There has been terrorism in the world (and in the US) since man first started recording history.

dnuggs40

I'm not willing to give up all my freedoms to the government either. But, the fact is the US was more free prior to 911, because there wasn't a huge threat of terrorism. Now there is a threat of terrorism and it's worldwide. So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppresion from terrorism. And to be free, your government can't restrict freedoms too much and become oppressive either, but I don't think that is the case as of now. Everyone has an opinion and that's what mine is. Some people in the mideast seem to believe the opposite. To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree.

Oh, and yes you can't be 100% free of terrorism or oppression from terrorism and we certainly aren't now after 911. So you at least need to be "relatively" free from terrorism to be free.

How did the threat of terrorism make us less free? It made us less safe, but not any less free. And the ONLY freedoms that were infringed upon was by our own government. They are the absolute only threat to our constitutional freedoms.

And your statement does not stand, because it does notmake sense and is an impossibility. Nobody here in the USA is oppressed by terrorism.

"To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree."

You don't even understand their ideology what-so-ever. In their eyes the terrorism is a means to an end, NOT their ideology regarding freedom.

"So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppression from terrorism."

Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with oppression. In fact, terrorism is usually the RESULT of oppression, NOT the cause.

You arejust going to continue playing sillydefinition word games. I feel less free after the knowledge that people are out there who want to and are trying to destroy, terrorize, or disrupt our lives. And what about the people in countries where terrorism is almost always a factor. Aren't they less free also?

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

Nobody says anyting about letting terrorism "go on as it pleases". That's a cop out. I am just not willing to give up my personal freedoms and protections in order to fight it. We should fight it the best way we can, without infringing on the citizens constitutionaly given rights.

And no, it doesn't make perfect sense, becuase you can NEVER be completely free of terrorism. It's absolutely impossible. Whether it is domestic or abroad, there is always someone willing to do something terrible. There has been terrorism in the world (and in the US) since man first started recording history.

FPSGunnerDude

I'm not willing to give up all my freedoms to the government either. But, the fact is the US was more free prior to 911, because there wasn't a huge threat of terrorism. Now there is a threat of terrorism and it's worldwide. So my statement stands To be free, you need to free of oppresion from terrorism. And to be free, your government can't restrict freedoms too much and become oppressive either, but I don't think that is the case as of now. Everyone has an opinion and that's what mine is. Some people in the mideast seem to believe the opposite. To be free you need to sponser terrorism and have state sponsered terrorists, and/or inact Islamic law. Of course, I disagree.

Oh, and yes you can't be 100% free of terrorism or oppression from terrorism and we certainly aren't now after 911. So you at least need to be "relatively" free from terrorism to be free.

Regardless it is COWARDLY to accept the sacrifice of our freedoms to some how feel safer. Defenders say if we pull out of Iraq the terrorist will think they are winning.. What the hell do they call of us sacrificing our rights? That they see that we are going so far because they got their message along.. Its pure bs to think we need to sacrfice any rights to combat terrorism.. Specially how selfish people are.. I guess they never realized that many of our freedoms already kill more people then 10x 9/11 in a single year.

And this logic in the end has only strained our diplomacy with the entire world to the breaking point, broke numerous international treaties from torture, to numerous weapons programs. And statistics have already shown that terrorism is getting worse. Why should I sacrifice any freedoms or agree to go upon this course of action when it has the exact oppostie effect we wanted.. Terrorism has swelled, we have shown how vunrable the United States really is with Iraq stretching us to the breaking point, we have sacrificed many soldiers lives for no real improvement or solution to a ever worsening matter. We have lost trillons of dollars in Iraq where some of the top Republicans are calling to pull out.

Hell what about Abu Gharub? They tortured possibly innocent people with no evidence of one way or the other, this is with the top brass saying they were doing a good job..

Or what about Gitmo bay, Where numerous people in there are possibly innocent yet have had no trial, or any formal committee to prove their innocence.Of course this doesn't bother the people for it because you have no way of getting in there, which is selfish and ignorance at its best.

Whats it gonna take for this to go further? Hell we had in Michigan last year 2 young men of arabic decent charged with TERRORISM.. For? Both were central michigan football players who went up north to Mackinaw on vacation, on the way they bought tons of cheap cell phones to cell at their school, as well as taking a picture of mackinaw bridge. They were charged with this evidence or lack of before the charges were finally thrown out when it made it on the News.. Why should ANY one trust our government if they are making this rediculous of claims.

In the end every one wants tyranny and violence wiped out.. But come on we can not fight terrorism conventionally. The more innocents that die directly or indirectly possibly cause the creation numerous terrorists.. In the end terrorism has worsened far more before the invasion in iraq. What cracks me up is the forced on ignorance of the government. The one libertarian running for president on the republican side was called almost a tratior for saying we have to actually listen to why these people are mad at us and remedy it.. But nope before they even let him finished they started calling him things close to traitor.

I guess few remember that we have supported every brutal dictator that has killed numerous people from Iran (we helped Shah into power), Iraq (we armed both of them covertly to kill one another) or even Saudi Arabia which we support today.. A country where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from, not to mention arguably one of the most deeply religious radical nations ran by a brutal monarch which our president is personal friends with through business.

I am all for going after AQ.. But we arn't any more.. They are coming to us which is slowing our progress (well no progress really in Iraq) to try to make it stable.. Hell now we are ARMING Sunni extremists there, the group which accounts for 95% of the attacks and deaths on the US soldiers there.. How can any one defend this? Hell the one place that AQ was heavily based in was Afghanistan, and we left there.. Now the Taliban is back and better then ever.. A organization that directly supported AQ, and yet we never even bat a eyelash to it..

......AQ was heavily based in was Afghanistan, and we left there.. Now the Taliban is back and better then ever.. A organization that directly supported AQ, and yet we never even bat a eyelash to it.....sSubZerOo

I agree to a certain extent. Think about WWII, pearl harbor, and dropping the A-Bomb. I was told that what our enemies thensaid was "It was like we had awoken a great dragon"

[QUOTE="espoac"]In Iraq, no. This war has nothing to do with freedom. The real result of Iraq is the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no respect for those soldiers.MagnumPI

That's a gross exaggeration. Aside from the extra zerosyou don't actually know which were innocent and which were not. Just because they didn't have weapons on them the day they were killed doesn't mean they weren't the enemy.

Don't blame the soldiers. There's a reason they are regimented into NonCommissioned and Commissioned Officers. So there is a system of I Say... You do.Aside from that the opposition hides amongst the civilians so you must expect civilian casualties. It's unfortunate, but rebels alwaysdrag them into the center of the crossfire. Not literally, but they create situation in which the civillians serve as human shields. They think U.S forces won't open fire, but when you're being fired upon you either return fire or die.

The rebels don't care about the safety of those people. They put the civilians in danger which results insome of the civilians getting killed. They cause it and the results create some propaganda for the enemy.

Like the civilians are completely ignorant of the situation. Supposed, presumed civilians. You don't really know who the enemy is until they become an active threat or expose their hostile intentions. Until then they seem to be a civilian.

Many soldiers are stupid and make stupid decisions or go renegade or roguewhich results in uneceesary death or destruction. But that occurs in every miltary.But those many are a small percentage of the majority. **** happens.

And at the very least these soldiers are making a a war happen that is wasting our tax dollars. That alone justifies my disdain.

US soldiers aren't dying for our freedoms. the war in iraq isn't for our freedom. the whole WMD was just an excuse so that Iraqs oil fields could be available for use by western nations. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, someone else would have because Iraq was under UN economic sanction. I still support our troops.

GO MILITARY!!!

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="bentleg"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Back in WW2 yes. Then, if Nazis took over Europe, or if Japan dominated the Pacific, we would be done. Now, the recent wars are all about politics and special interest. Iraq was never going to take away our freedom even with Sadam in charge. All we have done is make Iraq an easier place for terrorists to train their forces and attack us.SunofVich

So freedom should maybe reserved for white people.

Yeah but, there is no oil in Darfur.

Seriously that is probably the only reason for not going there. If they had oil we would be there in a heartbeat.

Please get your facts straight. Sudan is sitting on billions barrels of proven oil reserves. Do your research before making ignorant comment about it.