Is the term "defending our freedom" still applicable?

[orcus116]

A friend of mine posted a facebook status outlining some argument she had with a guy who talked down about the military and her response was well and fine but she had to add that line about "people are dying to defend your right to have an opinion in the middle of Wal-mart". I understand the idea behind it but I simply can not agree with that at all considering a majority of military deaths are occurring in offensive related situations on foreign soil, pretty much the exact opposite of defending US soil. I guess you could argue that much of our military occupation is preventive or however you'd want to word it but I really don't see how any of the situations across the world have anything to do with someone speaking their mind on the homefront.

And just to clarify this has nothing to do with my opinion of the military, I just think that line is a little bogus, at least when referring to our current military affairs.

[El Barto]

Defending our interests would be a much more apt expression.

[hefdaddy42]

I agree.

[kirksnosehair]

fighting for freedom is like f*cking for virginity.

[the Catfishman]

Defending our interests would be a much more apt expression.

yeah, 'defending our freedom' is easier to sell to the public, all the stuff the US is doing in the middle east probably has resulted in less freedom and more danger for the US citizens.

[antigoon]

It's a load of bullshit and I wish regular people would stop parroting it.

[Super Dude]

I wouldn't say it's bullshit, but it's been a long time since fighting a war has legitimately met that requirement.

[Adami]

Hasn't been applicable since WW2 ended.

[Super Dude]

^Yeah, pretty much that.

[antigoon]

I wouldn't say it's bullshit, but it's been a long time since fighting a war has legitimately met that requirement.

Yes, so, bullshit

[Super Dude]

Although I think it's lame to judge wars on that basis anyway, especially with such a large power as America. Any and all wars are fought over interests, and to impose moral judgment on something whose basis is amoral is pointless.

That, however, I attribute to the reasons for going to war. Conduct of war, imo, is a totally different story.

[Scheavo]

I think in the context it was used, the point makes more sense, and feels more general about the military and it's potential capacity. Blame some generals and policy advisors for the wars we're in, not the military, and not the troops. I'd just like to point out that, whether you agree with it or not, there are people dying, in the faith of defending your country. I may think its misguided, you may think its misguided, but that's their intent, and we should acknowledge it.

[the Catfishman]

I may think its misguided, you may think its misguided, but that's their intent, and we should acknowledge it.

The same could be said about suicide bombers

[Scheavo]

I may think its misguided, you may think its misguided, but that's their intent, and we should acknowledge it.

Then same could be said about suicide bombers

On some level, we should. We should realize that there's something wrong enough in their society for them to do what they're doing, and that just maybe we should look at how we can end the context whereby such problems arise. Maybe if we empathized with our enemies a little more, we wouldn't bomb them, wouldn't give them a reason to hate us, and ya know, wouldn't unduly call them our "enemy."