To claim that the US Armed forces stand for abuses because a few soldiers commit them and are punished it like saying that every nation of the world stands for murder because it happens everywhere.
I don't recall anybody making such claims.
I was showed pictures of soldiers who were mutilating Iraqi bodiees after they were dead, shooting prisoners of war for throwing sticks and stones at them, breaking their legs and carring them out around the 25 degree weather like it's some sort of game. Keeping civilians in prison for 6 months to a year for doing nothing, and then treating them like crap. THESE are not heros, in my opinion. So I'll go along and say that the average soldier isn't a hero. Sure, he'll give up his life for his country, and I can respect and admire that, but if he's participated in the above acts, no way.
Note that Mr. Kikimm refers to soldiers who've participated in the above acts as "the average soldier".

Also, your argument that the simple existance of soldiers is the root of my freedom is, well, extreme, and hardly applicable to any real life argument. So, I will counter your argument with an equally absurd argument that has no real merit in the real world. It goes a little something like this: If there were no soldiers at all, nobody would have the ability to invade us.
Because we don't ever have to worry about riots, or terrorism, or anybody trying to pull uprisings, or any of that fun stuff.

The existence of soldiers is needed.Why?imperialism and all that good stuff i think.Why use your missile system when we can get them with our intelegence then send a squad in to do a few missions.
While my beliefs regarding the"imperialism" argument are, I believe, well-known, I believe you're trying to say, more or less, that we don't need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. And since in the case of nuclear weapons our "sledgehammer" will kill millions of people, they're our ultimate last resort--to make them our only resort would be murderously stupid.