Are we really fighting to protect our freedoms?

Are we really fighting to protect our freedoms?

Hello CW2 Kantor:

I agree with you 100%. We are overseas fighting wars and defending nations that have nothing whatsoever to do with our personal freedoms or the freedom of our own nation. Since the attacks on 9-11 we have been slowly losing our personal freedoms, We have elected officials who are doing their best to deny us our 2nd amendment rights because the fear that we will or may use those very same weapons to take our freedoms back. Our phones, whether hard lines or cellular are subject to monitoring for no good reason. The fact that the "Patriot Act" is still in effect shows us that we will lay down and not question the bullshit that our government is passing on to us.

Your quote from Benjamin Franklin is spot on. There are 86% of us who willingly lay down, sit, roll over, speak, and play dead while the other 14% do as they please. While I can understand the need for some of the regulations that have been passed down are for our own good, but elimination of the Bill of Rights has begun and the 86% need to stand up and do something about what is going on here at home. I will never be elected to any public office, which is fine with me but remember this people. These things I will defend:
1) My God
2) My Country
3) The Constitution
4)  My Family and Friends
5) My Guns
6) And the rights of some people to be stupid
I fought and served my country because I believe in this nation. However over the past 12 years since I left the service I have lost faith in the leadership of this great nation. Once again the Rally Cry should be "DON'T TREAD ON ME" and do what needs to be done to regain control. I am not advocating anarchy or rebellion, but obviously something needs to be done here.

These are my opinions and I expect to get slammed, voted down, or outright ridiculed for them. But give me your best shot, I have heard it all before.

Just to add a bit more to this response:

"If ever the time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin."

                                                           Samuel Adams

It's a very simple answer despite your lengthy what seems like a ramble.  Our (military) presence is what protects our freedom.  Take away our military and we'd be occupied by next week by a line of governments.  Much like 2 big brothers walking the school halls with their little freshmen sister.  It is their presence alone protecting her.  They don't have to be engaged in conflict to do that.  You have tunnel vision in this topic.

Before this one blows up like my other conversations, I feel I should point out that I, in no way, undermine the sacrifices we have all made, especially those who have fallen.  We each fight for our own reasons and so long as we hold to our own convictions, no sacrifice is in vain.  Please do not take my interest in this subject as anything other than an attempt to have an interesting, opinionated discussion.  We have all lost friends and family, myself included.

Greetings CW2 K.

I believe the existence and capabilities of our military deter foreign invasion, certainly. Do we actively defend our freedoms? Well, there really isn't anyone to defend them from. Mexico and Canada don't really seem intent on invasion at this point. 

Yes, but we are just one of the tools that protect our freedoms. Realistically, no matter how much our military capability is expanded, we would not be capable of protecting our nation, or freedoms, from a properly configured alliance against us. Our freedoms are protected through treaties, diplomacy and effective relationships with other nations. When all the diplomatic tools have failed, they send us in. Given that "big picture" very few of the battles, or even wars we fought can be said to have defended our freedoms. Perhaps a more appropriate description of our role would be setting the tone so that agreements can be negotiated, or demanded, that ensure the continued existence or our great experiment.

I always had a problem relating the Freedoms of someone in the US and burning leeches off my butt. I was a soldier, it is what I wanted to be. To me everything is training until you use your skills against an enemy.

for myself, I would say yes, we fight the wars that need to be fought (mostly) all of our big fights had something realistic going for them (I am not too sure about fixing the CIA screw up in Panama, but that is a different discussion) every war had some nobility involved, if not at the beginning. Someone once said to me that we fight them as small as possible in their country, so we do not have to fight them in ours. The Revolution was a noble fight, it gave us our freedom from England, The Civil war started as basicly a land grab, but became Nobel after the emancipation proclamation signed towards the end. Every other fight was outside the US for major significance. WW1, we went to the aid of our friends, to help protect them (long term interests that have generally paid off for us) Spanish American war, we removed the yolk of slavery from several countries including Cuba and the Philippines, but not to possess them for ourselves, but because it was the right thing to do. WW2 was 2 fold, we were attacked directly as well as helping our friends from being destroyed, both noble in themselves, but with the underling issue of the Holocaust which SOME in DC knew was happening. Korea happened because Sec of State was not clear in a speech to the UN, when he said that attacking certain countries in the Pacific would be viewed as an attack on our mainland, and he left S Korea off that list. so that was our 1st official combat interaction with Communisim / Socialisim to protect our friend and ally (there were other very small fights with the larval form of Special Forces doing all of the fighting for America with their local allies). After WW2 there were only 2 main trains of thought left. Freedom loving West (US, England, France) and Communisim (Russia being the biggest, but not the only one) I think China could have be diverted if we handled it better, but that is water under the bridge. Viet Nam, is the only one I think that we really did not belong in at any level, It was bailing the French out of (another) failed situation, but I heard that Macnamera wanted a war under his belt to make himself look better. But again, we were there, and if the Politicians had let SF do their job without interference, I think the OSS element that worked with Ho Chi Minh, MIGHT have been able to talk him down with very little fight. He did not want a fight with the US, his beef was with the French and no one else, but he was a top ally in the region during WW2 and I have heard that he actually liked his American Liaison officer, This would have cut short if not eliminated the fighting in VN. So instead of telling the French that in this case THEY were the bad guys, we end up in a fight that cost us dearly at home and overseas. Grenada was a very short op to rescue Americans in Danger (one of our primary duties), Panama, as I said earlier was cleaning up for the CIA.
Then the wall came down, Russia was still a threat, but greatly reduced, along comes Kuwait. Being one of those who deployed to that one, my perspective was simply this, we have no MAJOR issue projected, and here we have a little guy country, that is unable to defend itself, being gobbled up by the local bully. I was raised to hate bullies, so I had no problem going into that fight, seemed a clean noble reason to me, and to many others around me at the time. Was the fight over oil as some say, well, yes, it was, but not for ourselves, had we become the worlds policeman, again, yes, who else was (or is) CAPABLE of doing that job. The only other countries who have the manpower available, were Russia (who was still trying to figure out what happened to themselves, let alone what was next) and China, who, because of (my opinion) bad diplomacy over the prior 40 - 70 years, would have not been just, in their handling of the situation if anyone could even convince them to get involved. (again, my opinion)
After that, we have made several bad calls politically that have lead to 9/11 and since. But we were attacked, we waited to identify the people who did it, and that has brought us to this point. Which comes back to one of my very first points, Our job is to fight our enemies, and IF we have to fight, I for one, would rather it be in THEIR country, than ours. Sorry for the long post, but this was my 2 pennies for your inquiry. For the fighting of OUR Freedoms, we are trying (as the Military) to keep other beliefs outside our boarders, so that the people here can make up their own minds. and until recently, the threat was primarily from outside with combat forces. and our people have become soft and whiny, so the bad forces were INVITED into our country, and THAT is an issue that the Military is not trained or geared to work against (There are units that are, but few and small CA/PSYOPS)

I fail to see how my tours on the DMZ in Korea or multiple tours in Vietnam did anything to effect our Freedoms The clusterfuck in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan did anything. I'm just a soldier who goes where he is ordered