Fighting for my freedom?
 

First, let me say that I mean no disrespect toward soldiers, the navy, the airforce, armed forces, reserves, anyone fighting in wars, who has fought in a war or even supports wars. This is not intended on questioning current wars and governments and their purpose and goals, I just wish to be better educated about this. Please do not take offense, as I mean none.

I often hear people say that the people in Iraq right now are fighting for my freedom, but I don't understand. When people say that they are "fighting for the freedom of these peoples from a cruel and oppressive regime" then I would better understand what they mean.

I've been brought up in a place where we don't glorify our battles, and instead take pride in our peacekeeping. Until I started talking to Americans, I had never thought that fighting somewhere far away could be the same as fighting for the country I'm in.

So in short, this is what I'm asking: How does fighting a war on another continent translate into fighting for my country's freedom?

Please explain this to me.

Thanks!

The war in Iraq has no positive effect on your or my daily freedoms. If anything, the existence of this 'war' on 'terror' (which in actuality has nothing to do with the Iraq war) has taken several freedoms from us. When you or I hear someone say that soldiers are fighting for our freedom, they are usually simply repeating something they heard someone else say. Now it is logical on the surface to say that the soldiers are fighting for economic superiority for the United States, therefore they are making it easier for us to be safe in our freedoms. But. In attacking and fighting for resources, we are alienating and angering many, many groups of people who would have otherwise left us alone. We have angered some people so much that they use bombs to try and make us stop. Are they right to do this? No. Do I understand why they do it? Yes. Are we right in going after their resources? No. Theft is wrong. I know that's an oversimplification, but it does ultimatally boil down to theft.

I'm gonna call you on this. Show some proof of anyone in the administration or military stealing something, to the degree that you could categorize our military actions as "theft". Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't parrot what you've heard other people say.

They stole an entire country from its government.

That's only true if 1. The US somehow "owned" Iraq now and 2. That the previous gov't somehow "owned" Iraq. Neither of these is true, so your statement is false. Very cute, though.

I like to view it as giving the government back to the people which was stolen from them by Saddam.

Guess we should go back to England, right? I mean, since our founding fathers were theives and all.

Well, it's a matter of fighting for your ideals, and to help your friends and hurt your enemies. There was really no reason for the US to go to war with Nazi Germany during WWII. They hadn't attacked us, in fact, we'd done stuff to them which consisted of casus belli, and they went out of their way not to get into a fight with us about it.

All of your country's enemies don't have to be domestic enemies. Sometimes, they are half a world away. And it's far better to fight them half a world away than to fight them here at home.

Ah, so you're saying that if we were just nice to the terrorists, and gave them everything they want, they'd be nice back to us? Didn't some guy named Neville Chamberlain try that once upon a time, with disasterous results?

cellophanedeity,

Quite simply, the statement means that Iraq is/was a direct threat to our way of life.




Prevent the disease or treat the symptom? How about both?

We are paying for the mistakes of the past. There is no doubt we must deal with the current issues but we must also find a way to solve the problem at it's base. For now we fight, but sooner or later we have to address the larger issue.

What does Chamberlain have to do with this? Are you talking about therapy for the extreamist groups again...

HALIBURTON.......

alansmithee,

heres a link i found about US soldiers stealing iraqi money..not sure what came of the investigation though..anyone have any ideas?


http://www.dailylobo.com/media/paper...y-425146.shtml

and another link of US soldiers 'stealing'...

i know pictures paint a thousand words, but i find it hard that they are in fact stealing. has anyone else seen this pic in this link? let me know what you think...

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2973.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/15511/timeline/1941.htm

*snip*
So, it is not a really good reason for the United States to declare war on a country that declared war on us first (Germany), yet it is a really good reason to go into Iraq with no provocation or evidence that military action is warranted?

That is assuredly a major talking point in many circles, however Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. " in a press conference in September of 2003.

There was no legitimate reason to go into Iraq, according to Downing Street memos anyway. They needed to fix intelligence reports to sound credible enough to make the American people believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected. They used terrorism and people's sense of fear due to 9/11 as the common thread.

I would feel much better if our efforts were focused on Bin Laden and his terrorist network, but Bush said in a press conference in March of 2002 after he was asked if he knew anything new about Bin Laden, "So I don't know where he(Bin Laden) is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." So, 6 months after America is attacked, Bush just doesn't spend much time on him. Nice.

Okay, thanks for trying, but this thread has gone exactly where I didn't want it to go. I'm sure that if you want to argue the validity of current and past wars there are other threads for that.

WillRavel, Moosenose's first post and Mantus gave me a better idea of what is meant though. More arguments based upon the thread topic, such as these, would be appreciated.

Here is enough reason to go into Iraq, UN resoultion 1441:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.




Annex



Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter









United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission



The Executive Chairman
International Atomic Energy Agency





The Director General








8 October 2002



Dear General Al-Saadi,



During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq’s acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.



During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.



In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed “sensitive sites” in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.























H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi
Advisor
Presidential Office
Baghdad

Iraq




We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.



Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.



UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.



The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.



The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors’ request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.



Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.



UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.



Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.



Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.



On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.



Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.



On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.



As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq’s national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.



We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.



Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq’s co-operation in all respect.



Yours sincerely,



(Signed) (Signed)
Hans Blix Mohamed ElBaradei
Executive Chairman Director General
United Nations Monitoring, International Atomic Energy Agency
Verification and Inspection Commission

This in itself was enough justification, Iraq was not in compliance, hence the dire consequences.

Now back to the original post, anytime troops fight to keep the wolf away from the door it is infact fighting for nations a freedom.

Sorry if I hijacked your post. I do think that willravel got it right in his post. I just have a hard time letting go of strings of thought that don't make sense to me.

**looks around for the scissors**

Think of it this way.

You live in a nation that has a dictatorship and as long as you play the game and do not rock the boat and be what the dictatorship wants you to be, you have running water, a decent education and job and common luxuries (not U.S. standard luxuries) but you aren't starving either, have decent roads and are one of the richer nations in your area. You are a very religious peoples, and as long as you are of the right denomination, you are ok..... otherwise if you are Shite (I maybe wrong it maybe Kurdish) your dictator whomps your asses.

Then comes a point where your dictator wants to control more, he invades Kuwait and you go to war and lose badly. Your nation is plummeted into deep depression, because of sanctions. But, so long as you "behave" you're fine, and your roads and infrastructure are maintained reasonably well, you have running water and so on.

Then the US starts pounding on you about WMD, of which there were none. They come in and say they are liberating you.

In the process you lose running water, your roads are torn apart, your infrastructure is in shambles, there are insurgents everywhere, the US basically holds you hostage...... but as long as you play the game and don't rock the boat and do as the US soldiers tell you.... you are fine.

Now, how long will this US occupation last? Noone knows for sure but you have been liberated...... well as long as you play the game, don't rock the boat and show the US respect and do as they say.

Oh yeah and the US shows no respect for your religion, however you have more freedom to practice how you want, but you are watched carefully and cautiously and the US tries to convert you to their religion, Christianity.

Celllo... I think willravel got it about as close as anyone else here... He presented a reasoned argument until the last couple of sentances where it became a little more editorial (not that I disagree with him but it was uneccessary to his arguement and resulted in this interesting topic being sucked into the morass of Iraq).

I have the same questions you do when people toss out the tired saw of, "those soldiers in Iraq are fighting to protect your Freedom". I just can't make the jump in logic. I tend to agree far more with the statement you made, "fighting for the freedom of these peoples from a cruel and oppressive regime". Even if I don't neccessarily agree that that *was* the reason for the war it just makes more sense to me.

In the end, as you can see from the endless nitpicking and bickering that results from these sorts of discussions, almost all of what is discussed is just spin. In the end, after all has been spun, no one (NO ONE) really knows what is happening but that is just what spin is for.

:hmm:

America is not fighting for our freedom, America is fighting for our safety. Also, we got fucked with. Our feedom is not in danger, but we are involved whether we like it or not.

Terrorists are also dangerous to other countries(England). These "terrorists" are willing to do anything to hurt or kill anyone. Its evil over there and no place like that should exist. They're willing to kill themselves for the cause even. Dedicated people. Nobodys innocent, but them. Faith can be dangerous in a situation like this.

America wants to keep the peace, police the world, and kick ass!

Team America FUCK YEAH! :thumbsup:

the best cliche i know is that war is politics using other means.
the military is an instrument of state policy. nothing about the rationale for military action originates with the military--it is always politics that shapes when and how the military is to be used.
given that, the question of whether military action can be understood as a "defense of freedom" is a function of whether you understand the state policies that determine military actions to themselves be in "defense of freedom."

(note: i feel like i have to put freedom in quotes. it is not obvious what that word actually means. particularly not these days.)

typically, the question of whether you can seperate the elements that underpin a particular use of the military is itself a political matter: those who support a particular administration or a particular action have every interest in arguing that you cannot make seperations and so have to see any action as necessarily about the general interest of the state which is always about "freedom" because it is always about defending the general context within which that "freedom" is exercized.

the linkage is most logical at the level of mobilization of support: the notion of "defending freedom" is a way of personalizing what would otherwise be an abstract matter--it is a turn of phrase that works off particular preconceptions--for example, this "land of the free and home of the brave" business that you might have heard about--this line from the anthem provides shows how the mobilization logic goes: you are a citizen (otherwise you would not be inclined to sing the star spangled banner--it is not the easiest song to sing, for example)--you are a citizen in this geographical space, within this space what defines you is "free", which is now a personal attribute. so defending freedom is a kind of code that establishes a link between the immediate personal interests of citizens, the mythology of nation as a way of designating a community, the state as the framework that assures the functioning of that community, and the policies of the state----which according to this logic are the expression of the requirements of the previous terms----and the use of the military in a particular case.


to my mind, you have to swallow alot of arrive at that view.

for example, everything about this logic is geared toward disabling critique by lumping together levels of activity that may or may not have anything to do with each other.

-it is pretty obvious that the interests of the state, which are determined by the composition of the institutions of state and their particular allegiances (class, interest groups, political party, blah blah blah) are not and need not be necessarily coincident with the interests of the population as a whole. in fact it is incoherent to image a general interest on the part of the population, no matter what rousseau said about the general will--all that is simply metaphysics rooted in attempts to ground the phantasm of nation. without that metaphysics, you have a great diversity of interests about which it is really difficult to speak coherently, etc.

-it is pretty obvious that the state is a relatively autonomous entity. people who work in that context can come to see the interests of state as being independent of all others--one of the main interests of state is to continue functioning as state.
-it is obvious that state policies can be shaped on any number of grounds.

-it is therefore obvious that military action, which is an expression of state policy, can and should be evaluated in the context of the policies that inform it.

and it is equally apparent that the generalizing claims are about selling a particular state action, a particular military action.

now you need to sell war regardless of the legitimacy of its causes. so if marketing war is inevitable, it follows that the fact of marketing war does not and cannot be confused with consideration of the legitimacy of the policies that determine war (what when where why).

all of which means that you and i have to make judgements. it is our prerogative as citizens to make political judgements--in a democratic setting, this is fundamental--assembling information, assessing it, arriving at conclusions as to whether particular military actions are legitimate or not. and it seems to me--but here i am talking from my own political viewpoint--that judgement presupposes a distance from the marketing of war in every situation. to my mind, the marketing of war NEVER addresses the question of whether particular policies are legit and whether the decision to go to war is legit. it seems to me that in a democratic context, there should be a space of prior deliberation--if after informed debate folk choose to support a particular action, then fine---but war cannot and should not short circuit democracy. even in its shallow american form.

sadly, the marketing of war is an interesting job for some, and allowing a polity to make judgements about an action has come to be seen as dangerous. so marketing tends to attempt to substitute the myth of national unity and the illusion of momentum for judgement.
so to sell war you have the notion of a unified and eternal nation.
to sell war you have the illusion of popular unanimity in a context in which no-one asks the population what they make of anything and no-one cares really what the population thinks--the people are malleable, they are willing to be led--they can be told what they think--and a segment of the population always seems to enjoy that.

in this , you see one of the worst features of americna pseudo-democracy operating in one of the worst areas--the people are not the source of politicalpower in any meaningful sense--the people are generators of opinion and opinion can be managed--so the people are a management problem and marketing a way to solve that problem.

it is only within the context of marketing war that you start to hit cliches that the bush administration has been milking for all they are worth. take the fetishsim of the military, for example, this kind of strange idea that being part of the military makes you a special type of human being whose every action operates at a higher level of significance than those which happen in any other sector---"our boys", a group constituted within this elevated, mystical sphere of direct communication between the nation (the sacred) and us mortals, are a group of martyrs (at least in potentia) and the narrative about "our boys" is a sacrifical one.
so the sacrifice of memebers of the military--who matter publically only indirectly (but whose individual sacrifice impacts directly on families and particular communities) is staged as a theater of national unity--our boys risk their lives in a space of chaos and crisis--when any of them is martyred, it would follow that the increased unity of the nation should follow and that this increased unity explains and justifies the sacrifice.

all of which has nothing to do with the empirical military. the empirical military does not operate in this mystical register, which is a remapping of the space of crisis and the intervention of the gods in athentian tragedy.
but the possibility that it can be seen in these terms is doubtless flattering and may for some (or many, who knows, really) function to legitimate a particularly dangerous career choice.
either way, this entire register of argument is part of marketing war.
whether you choose to accept it or not is--or should be--a function of prior judgements--the only thing sure is that there is nothing natural about the claim that the military operates in this register, just as they is nothing given in advance about the defintion of nation or the relation of individual citizens to the nation.
marketing of war always acts otherwise, as if the terms were given and war simply puts them into motion.

so how does it work, this claim that the mlitary defends our freedoms?
outside the framework of marketing war, it doesnt.
within that frame, this chain is all there is.
in terms of american military adventures, i could imagine participating in this in the context of ww2...the civil war, viewed from a particular angle and not others...maybe ww1...but the spainsh american war, vetnam, iraq--for me all clearly absurd. korea was more ambiguous simply as a functin of the strategic game that was played out across it.

so there is no one answer, it seems.

OK, I'll take a shot at it:

It's about drawing a line in the sand. It's about saying that terrorism will not dictate another country's foreign policy. It's about open societies remaining open in the face of those who are threatened by the idea of democracy, civil liberties, women's rights etc, and wish to destroy that way of life.

Example: Terrorists successfully forced Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq after al-Qaeda bombed Madrid. Where does it end? Did Spain make decisions based on whats best for Spain, or whats best for the Terrorists? Freedom of choice.

Ummm, I hate to point this out to you, but the US declared war on Germany and Japan on December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor. Remember FDR's "day that will live in infamy" speech? He asked for a declaration of war in that speech and got it right then and there. Germany and Italy declared war on the US three days later on December 11, 1941.

Moose? The US declared war against only Japan on the 8th. FDR would have had some trouble getting the declaration for Germany/Italy had it not been for Hitler's enthusiasm.

You've got your facts mixed up here. Dazed and Confused had it right to begin with.

http://www.archives.gov/education/le...day-of-infamy/

Back to the topic at hand...The reason we fight the terrorists, and fighting them is defending my (and your) freedom is because this is what they want.

The whole article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200709_pf.html

Extremists want an islamic world, which means you can say goodbye to all your freedoms and hello to midevil barbarisim, burkas, stonings, and amputations. You can fight it or you can give them what they want one step at a time.

Well damn....
 

You're right. My bad.

It was, BTW, on September 11, 1941, that Roosevelt ordered all US warships to attack all German warships on sight. Casus belli? Who knew!

Do you really believe that a fringe movement, such as is the Islamic, religious fundamentalist terrorist movement, is really powerful enough to defeat all of western civilization as we know it? Do you really believe that if we do not go and kill every terrorist, people in nebraska will soon be wearing burkas and subjected to stonings?

It has been almost 4 years since September 11th. Have you seen any noticeable change in your life?

You say, steveo, that you fear these muslim fundamentalists are a threat to our freedoms and civil liberties. Well, I would respond by saying that I think you are correct. They are a threat to our freedoms and civil liberties in such a manner that our government now has another "boogie man" that can be used as a fear tactic to erode our freedoms and civil liberties and pummel the American public into submission.

The threat of the loss of freedoms in this so-called "war on terror", steveo, does not come from without...but rather from within.

If they set off a bomb, so we give them an inch, they'll set off another bomb and we'll geve them another inch. As long as the terrorists get the responses they want they will keep at it.

Is nebraska wearing burkas? no. After 9/11 did we say "Osama, what is it you want us to do?" No.

No you didn't say that, but you did exactly what he wanted you to do anyway. You raised his profile from low-grade criminal, to folk hero. You legitimised his organisation by publicly using millitary force against him and you have turned many rationally thinking, pro-western people against the west by murdering their families. You continue to make him more popular by forcing your young troops into impossible situations where civillians are bound to be affected, and you continue to use simplistic and see-through arguments in order to justify a failing, and anti-American policy.

nevermind

(extra letters)

And if we sat around a table and called muslim leaders and decided to withdraw our presance from anywhere in the middle east we would have been seen as weak and osama would have been empowered by that.

As for the rationally thinking pro-western turned islamic fascist suicidal bomber because we killed their families, ask the LIVING family members of the london attackers why their children, husbands, wife blew themselves up and murdered all those people if they were still alive?

Their minds were poisoned by their 'spiritual leaders' not because we killed their relatives. Their relatives now fear for their lives because of the destruction their kin caused.

Maybe, but wouldn't a discrete infiltration of Al Qaida, coupled with similarly discrete intelligence gathering against similar groups and subsequent, quiet, discrete justice have been more effective?

If it is the fault of the 'spritual leaders', then why not quietly gather intelligence on them and deal with them individually, rather than use the crude and arbitrary tactic of bombings and millitary occupation?

I'm not arguing for us in the west to concede anything, I just think our tactics have been counter-productive. As a citizen of the west, I want to see us 'win' in this battle of ideologies - and I don't see our use of millitary action helping us achieve that goal.

i understood the question at hand to be much broader than questions to do with the "war on terror" and its hallucinated connections to iraq. and i dont see how you can go from this more narrow approach to the general matter. just saying...

In direct response to this question, I think it's evident that I believe that fighting a war on another continent runs counter to the goal of maintaining my personal freedoms. I believe there were and still are alteratives that could be explored that would better safeguard my freedom.

In a more hypothetical situation, I think full-blown millitary action is very rarely called for, in situations where there is a direct massed millitary threat to one's own country or perhaps to one's ally's. Even in that situation, it may still be preferrable and more effective to utilise minimal, and discrete, targeted force(especially with the technologies available today)

first let me apologize because i'm not really adding anything to the thread topic. (also sorry for the vagueness, can't remember the groups names) the terrorists in spain did not cause spain to withdraw. the party in power at the time was already going to lose the election, and then tried to blame the bombings on the the local spanish terrorist group (ETA or something?). the spanish people did not agree with being there and were going to vote that contemporary govt. out. the bombings didn't change anything, other than giving you a false talking point.

The group you are referring to are the Basque separatists, and yes, the separatists did not do the bombing, but the conservative government in power tried to blame the bombing on the Basques and lost even more public support.

Since then, the Basques have bombed at least once that I know of, but the train bombing was not a Basque operation.

With the Basque separatists in Spain, I have a feeling that the Spanish didn't want to complicate things by adding more of a target on their back because of involvement in the occupation of Iraq. However, I do not claim to "know" the pulse of the Spanish people, just a hunch of mine.

As far as this "Fight for our Freedoms" issue is concerned. I am aware that the soldiers of this country fight for what the government wants them to fight for, which is noble because it speaks of the civic virtue of the soldier. I will not take that away from them....they are good men and women who do their jobs because it is the honorable thing to do and they care about each other like a family.

However, "they are over there fighting for your freedoms" is simply sloganeering as it is a dubious claim when applied to the Iraq war. This slogan is often hurled by the war supporter as a slap in the face to those who oppose the reasons for a war. Empirically, Americans have lost freedoms because of 9/11 and continue to lose more and more each day to the point where many of us "feel" it in our everyday lives, so if that is what the soldiers are doing, fighting for American's freedoms, then they are losing.

I resent the soldiers of this country being used as pawns in a petty political argument because I think that their sacrifice is not for one side of politics, but for the overarching concept of "country", which includes all of us.

Interesting statement, to say the least.

If you'd care to do, say, 5 minutes of research, you'll find that Zapatero (as well as his Socialist party) was considered an extreme outside shot for Spanish Prime Minister before the Madrid bombings. It is widely acknowledged that the bombings so shocked the Spanish populace that they effectively proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government.

But don't take my word for it, google away.

This statement is only half-true. While it is true that Aznar was ahead in the pre-election polls, it was not the shock of the Al Queda bombings that turned public opinion. Rather, it was the attempt of Aznar's government to blame the bombings on the separatists that sealed his fate by losing trust with his people, who were overwhelmingly against Aznar's foreign policy to begin with. Regardless, the polls were not so far apart as to give an "extreme outside" shot as you assert (3-5% lead, within the standard deviation, see article below). It was Aznar's to lose and he lost it because his government went roughshod over the other parties and he lied to his people about an important issue for political gain.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...168989,00.html

Ask a devout muslim (not a fundamentalist terrorist, just a devout muslim) if they want the West to live under Islamic law. They don't see it as enslaving us, they see it as "saving our souls". And yeah, Islam has a strong prostheletizing message to it...either through "peaceful" conversions, or through killing the infidels.

"Religion of peace", my ass.

Sure, if you don't mind government agents joining terrorist groups and killing people in terrorist attacks to prove their bona fides...

We tend to not send out suicide missions.

Wait, WHO in this argument is using an anti-American argument? Who is the one saying that US government policy is wrong? Let me guess...your next argument is "Slavery is freedom!" Am I right?

you can ask me if you like (raises hand). i dont consider myself devout in all sense of the term, but im a religious muslim living in a western government.

do i want the west to live under islamic law? hell no! im comfortable living here in oz.

why would make you think devout muslims or any muslim for that matter (barring a few extremists) would want to make you live under islamic rule? just because a few nutcases say it, doesnt mean we all think this way.

also, say for example that islamic rule was enforced on a western nation, there is no compulsion for anyone to become a muslim. just because you grow a beard and look outwardly muslim doesnt make you a muslim either. good character, morals and being a kind and charitable person starts to make you a good muslim.

in reference to you "religion of peace my ass" comment, i find that extremely offensive that you would be so shallow. i could also say that christianity was and sometimess till is a violent religion based on what the crusaders did in spain and palestine, or that hitler exterminated the jews after setting up his own christian church, or that the extermination of bosnian muslims in srebrenica by the serbs was religion based. but i wont stoop that low, because i dont judge the religion by the actions of a few.

My research precludes me from conceding that "this statement" is "half-true". It can just as easily be credibly described as a neocon influenced, Republican "talking point" "OP", designed to paint the critics of the Iraq war as "appeasers", in the midst, at that time of the collapse of any serious defense of the WMD ruse for the invasion of Iraq, and to further the attack on Kerry over his claim at a fundraiser, "that he's heard from some world leaders who quietly back his candidacy and who hope he defeats President Bush in November".

powerclown, my research experience on this subject convinces me that no one can reach an accurate conclusion about this matter in "five minutes" of searching. I've included three reports <b>[1}</b> at the bottom to counter your "extreme outside shot" observation of the Spanish Socialist party on the eve of the March 2004 election. Two reports show the Socialists trailing by "three to six" points, (a statistically reasonable gap, in terms of a legitimate, "come from behind" victory), and a third report, from "Time Europe" that a respected Spanish journalist, José Antonio Martínez Soler, that "just hours before the bombings, results leaked from private PP and PSOE polling showed the parties in a dead heat".

I do not know for sure whether Spanish voters were influenced into become "appeasers" of terror by a well timed bombing attack. I also know that you do not "know", either. You are influenced by whoever is driving your car for you.
I am confident that the war in Iraq was not originally pursued to "fight terror", and I think that it is absurd to take this <a href="http://counterpunch.org/nimmo04022004.html">CNN claim</a> seriously.
Talking points were promptly faxed to the appropriate players, and the "OP" took flight.....some examples:
The following is the only excerpt included here of "Tme USA" coverage. The second paragraph counters any argument Spanish voters "appeased" terror:
<h4>[1]</h4>
<h4>[1]</h4>
<h4>[1]</h4>
Day in and day out, on these threads, I read statements posted by people who seem to "know", asserted as "fact", so much more than I do. I'm too suspicious for my own good, I guess. Otherwise, I wouldn't be so distracted, contemplating the unlikelihood of two middle eastern men, each with a $25 million price on his head, the first, accompanied by a dozen chidren, five wives, advanced kidney disease, tall enough to tower over everyone around him, with a face seen in photos by every sighted person, eluding capture of himself or the closest members of his entourage for more than 1400 days, while pursued by the most determined and technically and logistically able force ever tasked for the hunt, and the second, able to operate offensively, seemingly at will, hindered by a prosthetic leg, without benefit of terrain suitable to conceal his movement, seeming to pin down more than 100,000 U.S. troops and millions of Iraqis as he reportedly leads an insurgency through a continuous, successful series of bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, and other acts of sabotage, served up in timely communiques and videotapes.
Go figure !!!

I'm not eff....ing "OK with that"......with any of it. I prefer the BS that they want me to eat, served up pipin' hot on a sesame seed roll....with mustard.

"Zarqawi" is mentioned in this short "article" five times. The insur-gents are either runnin' outta money, or the insur-gents got "hundreds of millions of dollars" at its disposal".

If you are an avid consumer of this Bushco BS, thank god almighty that they got Zarqawi as a posterboy for the legitimacy of the delusion that they constantly dispense about "fightin" em thar....so we don't haveta fight em ovah heah" !! If something were to happen to completely turn vapor man Zarqawi into vaporware...this would just be about fightin' a homegrown insur-gency intent on driving out the occupiers....and there'd be nobody to point to that "might" be fixin' to come on ovah heah...if we wasn't fightin' em over thar.

I'm wearin' out a BS detector every month, readin' all of their BS. Anybody know where I can buy one that will still work after I slam it upside the wall, everytime I see the name "Zarqawi"?

Do we have to keep portraying our troops, our intelligence community, and our Prezdent as total and ineffective incompetents to keep all of this BS pipin' hot and in the bun?

Does anybody really buy into this BS anymore?

I followed what happened at the time, listened to the statements made by the players themselves, and came to the only conclusion that made sense. Spain folded like an accordion. Hopefully this will be the last time a terrorist group intimidates a sovereign country into submission.

The Bush Administration could come out and say "The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West", and some people would scream "Lies! Stolen Election! Coverup! Impeachment!"

"There is nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."--Frank Herbert

Why should it be, when so many on "our side" are advocating that we do exactly that?

i'm sick of hearing "religion of peace". gw invents this "religion of peace" non-sense and all of his followers believe that is what islam is in essence, which is completely incorrect. that said, to answer the original question of the topic starter, it's just a simple case of misleading the mindless masses into justifying an otherwise unjust cause such as the iraqi massacre. the iraqis are oppressed more than ever before, and you can be sure that the coalition is not fighting in iraq’s best interest. i’m glad that where you grew up they taught you to practice peace and tolerance, but unfortunately, that is not the case in america, or in the eyes of many americans, but thankfully, not all americans believe this. the war will bring about more violence and attacks than ever before, and has done nothing but recruited more individuals to spread their aggression against those who attacked them, and rightfully so. don’t allow them to feed you baseless propaganda as a means to support the war, and don’t ever think that they are fighting for your freedom, or the iraqis, as it’s simply not the case.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Spain is obviously still performing counter-terrorism operations and co-operating with other countries on the issue.

Spain did something that pissed people off. The people retaliated. Spain stopped pissing people off while seeking justice for the terrorist act.

What were they supposed to do? Say in Iraq. For what? Just to look tough? I believe there was already a strong anti-war movement in Spain and from what I heard the govenment supported involvement in Iraq despite the wishes of the populace.

Also there was a sea change in Spain... the government that took them on an Iraqi adventure was booted from power within a few days of the bombings...

The new government had campaigned on getting them out of Iraq. When they won it should have been no surprise that they should take steps to extricate themselves... bombing or no.

Initial blame by the administration was attributed to the Basque separatist movement. I suspect that didn't sit well with the electorate either when it turned out to be A'Q sponsored.