Why We Cannot Win

[War Angel]

But I don't feel anyone is fighting for my freedom.

Oh, but someone does. Freedom always needs to be protected, because there are always people who would take it away from you.

For example, you're at school, and a bully is picking on you. He's damaging your freedom and well-being. If you kick his arse, you are defending your freedom. If someone stands up for you, and kicks the bully's arse for you, he's protecting your freedom.

Same goes for soldiers - they're members of your family, your friends, clan members, part of the people, and they work for a goal - to maintain your freedom. For that, they lose some of theirs. THAT is admirable, in my opinion.

[Shadow Nexus]

Where Nazi soldiers defending freedom? Wait, or are Saddam's soldiers the ones defending freedom? No, they were defending a system. In the first case, Nazi soldiers attempted to impose a system- fascism- on a country with another system- democracy and capitalism- that tried to defend themselves, or in the case of Russia, stalinist socialism (I can't say I prefer Stalin much over Hitler). In the second case, the ones invading and imposing a system are the US army, and the others defend.

Saying "defending freedom" or "liberating" is pure demagogy. Saying "defending american democracy and capitalism" and "imposing american democracy and capitalism" sounds more accurate. Same goes for Al Quaeda, they claim to fight for freedom too, in my opinion they fight for theocracy and fundamentalism. Now, the thing is, yes, american democracy and capitalism allow more freedom than stalinism or theocracy (well, theocracy is a very relative term, you can say it can bring more freedom, but certainly not in the way it is practiced today), yet I highly doubt it is The System of Freedom, because in fact I believe it to be the ultimate alienation.

[War Angel]

Where Nazi soldiers defending freedom? Wait, or are Saddam's soldiers the ones defending freedom?

I said that in a democratic country, soldiers defend freedom. Not in every country. In Nazi Europe, the Nazi soldiers promoted and defended the Nazi idea, which you and I may find horrible, but they liked it a lot. Same goes for Saddam... believe it or not, he had a very strong popular support.

In the ideal, soldiers defend the pepole. Soldiers come from the people, and before they work for the goverment, they work for the people... and in a democratic nation, the goverment IS the people, it works best.

Ultimate freedom cannot be achieved in a country, only on the personal level. Complete freedom in a country is anarchy, and anarchy is simply facism from the other end... all very bad. Most of us understand what's best for us, and try to make it so others are well, too. Soldiers are the epitome of that, along with other volunteers etc.

[Turk]

Same goes for Saddam... believe it or not, he had a very strong popular support.

Umm did you go to Iraq and poll the population, or are you just saying what you want to believe?

And fighting for freedom? Do you know how many crimes have been committed by the American army, all crimes that had absolutely nothing to do with protecting my freedom? How many autocratic regimes are being supported by America, how many illegitimate regimes were brought to power by America (Saddam and the Baath Party)? All the incidents in Latin America, Asia...

I enjoy the fact that I was born in America, but I'm not going to trip out and say the government is sending troops to the other side of the world for my 'freedom'.

No country ever does something for the sake of another, there are always interests, and he who denies this, is living in a fantasy world.

Same goes for soldiers - they're members of your family, your friends, clan members, part of the people, and they work for a goal - to maintain your freedom.

Or to make a living. Or go to college. Or because they want a job. They are not my family, friends, or clan members. To me, they are tools for corporate politicians and their interior motives. I have no feelings of dislike for them, but I really couldn't give a damn about what happens to them either.

Tens of thousands of mercenaries are also currently employed in Iraq, by both the US government and corporations such as Halliburton. Are they too, bravely fighting for freedom with the regular army, bombing elderly women and children from 30,000 feet up in the air? So when my "members of family" return from their delusional Christ-given "mission", am I supposed to shower them with my thanks?

[Shadow Nexus]

in a democratic nation, the goverment IS the people

And here is the weak point in your argumentation.

[DMKA]

They're fighting for my freedom? Really? Kinda hard to fight for something that doesn't exsist, eh? =\

[Endless]

Yes, your freedom. Not a lot of Chinese (North Korean, ...) people get to go on forums like this one, much less to make fool of themselves. That's freedom.

[Shoeberto]

Yes, your freedom. Not a lot of Chinese (North Korean, ...) people get to go on forums like this one, much less to make fool of themselves. That's freedom.

I'm glad somebody said it. I hate people living in free countries (America and the like) saying how they aren't free, how the government is against them, and how everything is wrong. If you weren't free, you would be publicly drug out into the street and shot in the head by soldiers and left there to rot for saying that. We are free.

[Casey]

Do you know how many crimes have been committed by the American army, all crimes that had absolutely nothing to do with protecting my freedom?

You wouldn't happen to know would you?

No country ever does something for the sake of another, there are always interests, and he who denies this, is living in a fantasy world.

I dont think this war was for oil but even if it was. The USA needs oil, its a super power, if the economy of USA were to collapse alot of countries would get effected. And anarchy will exist, might is well die.

The war in the first place was to disarm Saddam, so it happens there weren't weapons of mass destruction. But lets not forget they were there. Alot of people keep saying there are no weapons of mass destruction, when they in the first place didnt know either before we went to war. I dont see why people keep saying no weapons of mass destruction. Likes it's done with, what we got to do now is rebuild a better Iraq, and not submit to defeat.

Tens of thousands of mercenaries are also currently employed in Iraq, by both the US government and corporations such as Halliburton. Are they too, bravely fighting for freedom with the regular army, bombing elderly women and children from 30,000 feet up in the air? So when my "members of family" return from their delusional Christ-given "mission", am I supposed to shower them with my thanks?

Please give me sources.


I also like to add that, we can win. We cant win completely, but we can contain it. Just like communism. I believe that for a start, we need to build good schools in the middle east, then having terrorism training camps.

[War Angel]

what we got to do now is rebuild a better Iraq, and not submit to defeat.

This, I disagree with. I think America should pull out of Iraq quickly before it sinks any deeper, and live Iraq to the Iraqies.

[theundeadhero]

The problem is that if we pull out right now the country will fall apart, Then we'll be blamed for that and hated even more. NOBODY wants the US to pull out more than the soldiers but that isn't a choicewe have. We'' be there until the country can make it on it's own.

[War Angel]

The problem is that if we pull out right now the country will fall apart,

Nothing will fall apart. There will be a power-struggle, and the strongest faction will rise to power. That's the way it works in such places, and that's the way they like it, seemingly.

We'' be there until the country can make it on it's own.

I hope you enjoy the centuries as they pass.

[DMKA]

I'm glad somebody said it. I hate people living in free countries (America and the like) saying how they aren't free, how the government is against them, and how everything is wrong. If you weren't free, you would be publicly drug out into the street and shot in the head by soldiers and left there to rot for saying that. We are free.

Ok then, why can't I marry another man if I want to? Why can't a drive down the street without my seatbelt on? Why can't I get a tatoo? Why can't I refuse to register with the selective service? Why do I have to have car insurance?

You obviously don't know whats going on in the world around you if you live in America and think its free, because it isn't. I never said it was a dictatorship or anything else, did I? So quit putting words in my mouth. We have certain freedoms, yes, and I never said we didn't, but we are not FREE. I don't care what the hell you say, we aren't. Thats like saying to a girl who gets raped by her stepdad everyday and then saying to her "Your stepfather isn't abusive! If he was abusive he'd be smaking you with a steel rod and slamming you into walls at 11:30pm every evening!".

Oh and please don't make cheap attempts at insulting me...its annoying.

[Endless]

I think you confuse "freedom" with "anarchy". Freedom isn't "do whatever pleases you". In the US it's "do whetever within the limits of the laws, laws which were decided by elected representatives of the people and upheld within the framework provided by the US Constitution."

Really, you're confusing the "state of nature" with "state of liberty." It's disingenious, but whatever. In a state of nature (a theoretical construct about which Locke, Hobbes, and others wrote), there is total "freedom." You have the "freedom" to kill someone. You have the "freedom" to take someone's property by force. You have the "freedom" to take their wives and children as your own. As you can see, a system in the state of nature would be one were life was without value, brief, and brutish. So, in order to actually, ya know, be able to enjoy life, men institute amongst themselves governments to create, enforce, and debate which acts shall be forbidden and which shall be permitted. In the US system, most of the restrictions are on the government (go take a gander at the Constitution. Most of it covers what the government is not allowed to do). So, in the US, you give up your freedom to kill someone and steal all their things in order to ensure that no one else will be going around and killing you and stealing all your things. If someone does that, then the government will remove their liberty entirely by placing them in jail and/or executing them.

(If you want to go live in a place where the "state of nature" and your ideas of "total freedom" are currently in practice, my wife would be happy to buy you a one-way ticket to Somalia. Be sure to take plenty of ammo, though. You'll need it.)

However, if you opt to remain in a country where there is a government to pass and enforce laws, then you'll have to live with the fact that you won't always like the laws. If you don't like a law, then there are things you should do to have it repealed. You could petition your state legislature in the US. You could write your Congressmen. You could hire a lawyer and run the court-gamut all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to try to prove that the law in question conflicts with the Constitution.

Now, the American concept of freedom and government is vastly different than the European one. In the US, you believe that your government *governs* you. It *serves* you. It does not rule you. You don't listen to your government so much as it listens to you. You can, and have in the past, specifically forbidden your government from doing things it would want to do. And, if it does those things, if it ignores the Constitution, you have, entrusted in your hands, the very instruments for correcting that problem (the Second Amendment). Should your government stop listening to you, you have the right to alter or abolish it. In Europe, your government rules you. It tells you what you can and cannot do, not vice versa. If a freedom is in question, then you don't have it. You can't expect to write your representatives and have them hear you out. And, alter or abolish over here? Yeah, right. Maybe in the UK but not on the continent. The only groups who could overthrow the continental governments are the fascists and communists who are illegaly stockpiling weaponry.

To make a very clear example of the difference between the US and Europe wrt to freedom: in France, not more than a few years ago, a man called a government minister a bad name. That man went to jail. In the US, people regularly call the President a murderer, a thug, a drug addict, another Hitler. When one of them goes to jail for those things, let me know, k?

If you need yet another example of the differences between "freedom" in the US and Europe, go look at the EU Constitution. Hundreds of pages to say that the people can't decide anything; the government will regiment, order, and regulate their lives from birth to death. All the important issues are removed from the voters hands and decided by the government because the people can't be trusted to get the "right" answer. Welfare reforms, labor issues, economic issues, what "rights" the people have: the EU government decides those and can reconsider them if it wants. The people have little to no say. Now take a look at the US Constitution. About 7 pages to say exactly what the government can do, what it can't do, and to say that if there is an issue in question, then the government isn't the one to call that shot (Amendments IX and X).

[DMKA]

I'm not talking about anarchy, I'm talking about there being laws forcing me to do stuff that I don't want to and then laws that won't allow me to do stuff I want to. I mean, it makes sense that theres laws that keep people from stealing, mudering ect, because those are hurting or atleast negatively affecting other people, but why can't I get a tatoo or marry another man? No one has explained how that = freedom to me.

I do agree with most of your last post though, with exception to the idea that America is a free country.