To me, the military and war machine are just as much “groomers” as the trans promotion. It all needs to stop. It’s growth. It’s unhealthy. It destroys health, mental, physical, relationships and breaks spirits. We have to stop grooming kids. I had to share your article on FB. All too relevant. I have experienced the same heart break watching a nephew join and Aaron and I powerless to change his mind after so much hardcore fucking brainwashing.
My position has definitely changed on this issue. I used to defer to "experts" in the military, who I assumed knew more about any military campaign than I did. But I don't defer to experts in any field now that I have seen how often they are wrong, and how much they try to shape public opinion as opposed to putting forth reasoned arguments.
I am thankful I came to this understanding gradually over the past couple of decades instead of just getting hit over the head with it three years ago.
This newfound skepticism is probably the greatest silver-lining gift of the whole Covid-19 debacle. Congratulations on getting there. Many still have not.
Treason is defined in the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3, as consisting "only in levying War against (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
All members of the American military take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
When the military is committed to foreign actions without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution, that is a violation of the Constitution, arguably the action of domestic enemies.
When a member of the military participates in an unconstitutional foreign military deployment, s/he violates both the Constitution and his/her oath to "support and defend" it, giving "aid and comfort" to it's "domestic enemies," committing treason by the definition given by the Constitution.
I don’t support the troops or military adventurism. What I DO take a moment for, in my heart, is to honor the spirit of courage and commitment, whenever it appears in an individual. While the origins of Memorial Day are in the glorification of the slaughter of brothers by brothers in the interest of the authoritarian aims of a racist madman (if Lincoln’s war was so great, why do I keep hearing how racist America is, 150 years later?), I know that many young men, having acted rashly in fervor or been dragooned by the state, found themselves in moments requiring real bravery. So I don’t celebrate Memorial Day, but I do honor the rising to challenge of its victims.
Superb. I get sick of all the war-cheerleading this time of year, and all year. Not only do our soldiers NOT die preserving our liberty, but they die for NO GOOD reason. Furthermore, they are a force for evil and immorality, and deserve our calumny, not our reverence.
Perhaps counterintuitively, if we showered them with calumny, we'd be doing them a favor. Or at least doing future generations of potential soldiers a favor.
Certainly I'd like to preserve my 3 childrens' lives (ages 18, 18 and 17) and prevent them from being enslaved and their lives sacrificed by the State. Although they were raised heavily immersed in a philosophical/paleo-libertarian credo, and thus have a healthy (unhealthy? lol) disdain, distrust and cynicism toward government, of course that won't protect them, come the next World War and likely conscription. They assure me they would never join the military no matter what---but who knows...by then the State may be executing "traitors" and "insurgents" for refusing to "protect the Fatherland."
Kudos to you for being so bold in writing something like this. I'm not going to leap out and say I agree 100% at this point but I will say this post has be thinking and considering. I've never seen such a clear-minded dissent of the military and appreciate your honesty and courage.
Thank you, Bretigne for having the courage to write and share this. I agree 100%. And the (perhaps ironic?) thing is, I have spent the last 20 years married to a Marine Corps officer (now retired). During that time, we lived in multiple duty stations, here and overseas, and he served two 7-month tours in Iraq - one when I was pregnant with our first child, the other when that child was only a year old. When we met, I was naive (and thus ambivalent) about the military and war. But living the 'military life' kinda forces you to take an active interest in politics and foreign policy, especially in war time. And through that active involvement, I learned so much about our country's history, especially the wars we fought and (the REAL reasons) why, and the atrocities our government has committed in the name of "freedom and democracy." Much of it was shocking to learn, and resulted in a significant cognitive dissonance as I struggled to reconcile the military's propaganda with what I was discovering through my own research. Needless to say, when I shared this 'taboo' knowledge with my husband, it caused some friction (to put it mildly), as he was of course fully drunk on the military/war Kool-Aid. Fortunately, he started to 'sober up' toward the end of his military career, and now with 20/20 hindsight, his views have come to (mostly) align with mine. And we have been united in ensuring that our son, who turns 18 next year, thankfully has vastly different career goals!
By the way, are you able to provide an update on "Kate"?
I respect your right to your opinion. That said, I think you lack knowledge of the wars the United States has fought, because if you had this knowledge, you would know that we always fought for our own freedom or that of others. And indirectly, the freedom of others has an impact on us. For example, the war in Viet Nam (one of the most maligned) kept most of Southeast Asia from turning communist. That is to our direct benefit. The war in Iraq took out a tyrant who was murdering his own people in the most hideous ways. Our participation in WWII saved untold millions from the tyranny of Hitler, and make no mistake: after conquering Europe, he would have come for us. People volunteered and died to preserve your freedom. So I respectfully disagree with your position. I am aware of the corruption. I decry it. But opposing legitimate action does not cure the corruption, it entrenches it.
Actually, this is a very good example of why many people need more information. We had actually WON the war, but were forced to pull out by politicians back home. But our presence preserved the lives of 1/4 of Cambodia's population while we were there. Those people were killed in forced marches as soon as we left.
Is that the same Cambodian population that the US bombed into oblivion and drove into the arms of the murderous Khmer Rouge? Your concern seems very selective.
I think there were a lot of bad decisions in all wars the human race has ever been involved in. I am not justifying any bad decisions.
My youngest son decided to join the Army. I wasn't happy about his decision, but he did it for the same reason as your young friend. He has served honorably, has not killed anyone, and has provided for his family. We didn't have the money to pay for college for him. He was a chaplain's assistant and helped in the rebuilding of Iraq. In spite of my disagreement with his choice. I am proud of him.
We can oppose war and still acknowledge that individuals join the military to help defend our country and have the right motives. The bad decisions are not their fault. We have lived in relative freedom for two centuries, but are now losing our liberties rapidly. We need honorable people to step in and put things right.
Teach your values to your son, and hope and pray he abides by them when he is older. Not all of my children did so. He wasn't one of those.
I am not interested in a long and hot debate. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.
Oh my, it appears you have proven Bretigne's entire point. Regarding Vietnam, I'd highly recommend reading Seymour Hersh's earlier writings, especially his (award-winning) coverage of the My Lai massacre, as well as Gareth Porter's coverage of the Hue massacre.
Bretigne is 100% correct. With the exception of the Revolutionary War, every single foreign war the US has been "involved" in has been for nefarious, imperialist reasons. Yes, even the world wars. If you're genuinely interested in learning actual history, try setting aside what you've read in the school textbooks, heard in the mainstream media and from "expert" pundits, and research both independent sources that practice truly investigate journalism, as well as the historians who have not been bought by the US security state.
Well, not exactly. People make assumptions about me even though they don't know me. I never learned anything about any of the wars in school. I don't read stuff that comes from mainstream media; I always read the stuff from dissenters and offbeat sources. And I haven't watched even 5 minutes of TV at a time since 2001. So don't make assumptions about my sources.
Let me give you another example. Based on my own research and common sense, I never locked down, or wore a mask. I even turned away from necessary surgery because they would not admit me without a mask. I haven't had the shots, and I have no intentions of ever submitting.
I am well aware of the atrocities. They weren't supposed to happen. But most of our troops serve honorably, and go out of their way to protect civilians, even to risking their own lives. While we can dissent from wars and their purpose, the troops don't deserve our scorn, because they only serve honorably and have nothing to do with policy. Obviously people who commit atrocities need to be tried and punished. The atrocities are not what determines if a war is a just war.
Note that our actions in Korea and Viet Nam have kept most of Southeast Asia free of communism. That is in our national interest.
Looking at each war we've engaged in, I don't find imperialism motivating most. WWII certainly wasn't such a war. Neither were Korea, Viet Nam, or Iraq. Afghanistan simply is an impossible situation; I see no evidence there is imperialism involved. As long as we were there, at least girls had a right to get an education, to go to school.
Too many Americans think that we are the only people on earth who are entitled to the rights God gave to all people. We hoard our privileges. That's wrong. We should not enter a war unless there is national interest involved. That's why Ukraine is none of our business. In general Republican presidents stick to wars where we have a national interest, while Democrats make decisions where wars are either none of our business, or contrary to our national interests. Pulling out of Afghanistan the way we did is shameful. The perp committed treason as far as I am concerned.
Simply put, we have a human duty to rescue those under oppression if we can. We don't have the ability to rescue everyone, so national interest is a must. We should not maintain open borders just because other people have needs. Our first duty is to protect our own people.
We made a big mistake allowing the Soviet Union to keep control of eastern European nations. We have made other egregious mistakes. This is bad leadership. It has nothing to do with the troops.
The problem as I see it with both you and Bretigne is oversimplification, and ignoring the motivation of people who join the military. People don't join the military to be imperialists. There is a distinction between the motives of the leadership and the motives of the troops. The troops are willing to give up their rights to protect the rest of us. Given that we are not imperialists, that argument should never be raised. No imperialist nation ever rebuilt a conquered nation and then withdrew voluntarily. America does that. Maintaining a base is not the same thing as continued occupation. While I think we should close most of those bases, their existence is not evidence for imperialism. Maintaining just enough force to support the locals in preserving their freedom is not imperialism either. Imperialism involves exploiting the natural resources of a conquered nation. We do not do that. End of story.
You mistake the point of my disdain. I don't scorn the troops. I scorn the safe old men who decide we need to send young brave men and women into unconstitutional battle. Who benefits? And I want a complete answer.
I was going to try to respond with reasonable comments, until I read this: "And I want a complete answer." You made a hostile DEMAND. That is not an honest dialog. I am not your slave. Good-bye.
Yes, I assumed that your answer would include only who "won" the conflict (as if anyone wins) rather than the complete answer of who benefits from ALL of the spoils of war.
I appreciate that you didn't mask or do any of that nonsense.
Our constitution allows only for defending our borders. It does not allow a standing army unless revisited every 2 years. It does not allow us to be the policemen of the world. Have we stopped communism? No. We've only weakened our military.
Check out President Thomas Jefferson and his war on the Barbary Pirates. Better to keep our enemies in their own territory than fight a war on our own, where our own people will be subject to sudden unexpected death.
I have declined to answer your other questions because of your hostile DEMAND. I will continue to do so.
Your arguments sound exactly like the "history" we're spoon-fed by our government and mainstream media, so I felt it safe to assume what your sources are.
I'm glad to hear you stuck to your convictions during the scamdemic, but that is irrelevant to this conversation about history.
"The atrocities are not what determines if a war is a just war." -- Again, you're proving Bretigne's point. There have been NO "just" wars since 1783, because they have all been for imperialist objectives, despite your insistence that WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq weren't. They absolutely were. And despite claiming your sources are "dissenting and offbeat," your views of history are very much aligned with the mainstream/Establishment narrative.
Preventing the spread of Communism is only of ECONOMIC interest to US elites; it is not a national security threat, as govt officials and their lapdog media wish us to believe (in order to manufacture our consent for their imperialistic wars).
NO, we do NOT have a "human duty to rescue those under oppression." Despite that propaganda being used as a guise for our military interventions and regime change efforts, it is NEVER really about "human rights" or "spreading democracy" or "protecting our rights/freedoms/security." It's only ever about overthrowing governments that don't align with our economic interests and/or to exploit/extract a country's resources (e.g. fossil fuels, precious metals, agricultural land or human labor). We don't TRULY care about the people in those countries, as evidenced by the shambles in which we leave each one once we've gotten what we've wanted from them. Rebuilding? Really? Did we do that in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Vietnam? Syria? Libya? But for the sake of argument, if it were truly for those benevolent reasons, it is both the height of hubris and ignorance for us to believe those vastly different cultures even WANT our American values and form of government. U.S. bases around the world are to protect OUR interests in those regions, NOT theirs.
"People don't join the military to be imperialists." -- This time you've missed Bretigne's point, which is that those people joined BECAUSE of the Establishment's propaganda about "humanitarianism" and "democracy," which continues even during their service so they remain completely unaware of what they're REALLY fighting for. Only the top brass know the real reasons.
Again, I invite you to seek out historians who are NOT funded by the government or special interests. There are many, but here's a good one to start with, if you are truly interested in understanding REAL history: https://canadianpatriot.org/
I'll tackle the easy one first. Rebuilding. In Iraq. This is because I have PERSONAL knowledge of the rebuilding effort there, in the form of a pile of photographs of the rebuilding, coming from a very, very close family member. He was involved in rebuilding schools, and a stadium. In Iraq.
As for Afghanistan and Vietnam, there is no opportunity to rebuild because politicians forced us to pull out before rebuilding could take place. We also don't have free rein in Syria or Libya. Nor have we conquered either nation or ousted their leadership.
You do not speak for what people of other cultures want. If you think I do not, then you do not by the very same definition. I don't know your background, but I have academic background in other countries and cultures.
No, I do not buy into propaganda from any official source. I don't read or watch their propaganda. I get my information from offbeat sources. Your claim to the contrary is simply ignorance on your part. You don't know me, or my sources. Furthermore, I am not limited to English language sources, since I read a number of other languages. I also get emails from a number of foreign news sources.
Just for kicks, read The Mouse That Roared. It's fiction, but based on a common attitude among the people of many foreign nations.
If you think the fight against communism and Hitler were just economic, think again. Of course, you will learn the hard way when the Chinese take over America, but then it will be too late. We do NOT take the natural resources from a conquered nation. We TRADE for what we want.
There are a few of us who just happen to believe that all people, worldwide, are made in God's image and God gave them the same unalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence. We cannot rescue the world. We don't have the means. But it should be first and foremost in our minds that it is EVIL to want to hoard the blessings of liberty ourselves, and simply let everyone else be run roughshod over. If we truly acted always with this in mind, we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem. Why do people want to get INTO our country? Why do they want to ESCAPE communist nations? It gripes the tar out of me that so many people are callous toward our fellow human beings. So whenever there is a national interest involved (because we have been attacked), in the process of nullifying the threat, we have every right to help those living under tyranny. We also have the right to make and honor treaties with other free nations.
I'm not so keen on historians. I prefer eyewitnesses.
You won't persuade me with your disregard for the well being of other humans who long for the same rights to life, liberty, and property lawfully acquired. It was a good attempt. But you get no brownie points.
To me, the military and war machine are just as much “groomers” as the trans promotion. It all needs to stop. It’s growth. It’s unhealthy. It destroys health, mental, physical, relationships and breaks spirits. We have to stop grooming kids. I had to share your article on FB. All too relevant. I have experienced the same heart break watching a nephew join and Aaron and I powerless to change his mind after so much hardcore fucking brainwashing.
Yes. Grooming. That is spot on!
My position has definitely changed on this issue. I used to defer to "experts" in the military, who I assumed knew more about any military campaign than I did. But I don't defer to experts in any field now that I have seen how often they are wrong, and how much they try to shape public opinion as opposed to putting forth reasoned arguments.
I am thankful I came to this understanding gradually over the past couple of decades instead of just getting hit over the head with it three years ago.
This newfound skepticism is probably the greatest silver-lining gift of the whole Covid-19 debacle. Congratulations on getting there. Many still have not.
Treason is defined in the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3, as consisting "only in levying War against (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
All members of the American military take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
When the military is committed to foreign actions without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution, that is a violation of the Constitution, arguably the action of domestic enemies.
When a member of the military participates in an unconstitutional foreign military deployment, s/he violates both the Constitution and his/her oath to "support and defend" it, giving "aid and comfort" to it's "domestic enemies," committing treason by the definition given by the Constitution.
I don’t support the troops or military adventurism. What I DO take a moment for, in my heart, is to honor the spirit of courage and commitment, whenever it appears in an individual. While the origins of Memorial Day are in the glorification of the slaughter of brothers by brothers in the interest of the authoritarian aims of a racist madman (if Lincoln’s war was so great, why do I keep hearing how racist America is, 150 years later?), I know that many young men, having acted rashly in fervor or been dragooned by the state, found themselves in moments requiring real bravery. So I don’t celebrate Memorial Day, but I do honor the rising to challenge of its victims.
The real reasons for wars are rarely written in your high school history books. They were warring over drug trade stuff.
But the treaty was a pretext in your school book.
Superb. I get sick of all the war-cheerleading this time of year, and all year. Not only do our soldiers NOT die preserving our liberty, but they die for NO GOOD reason. Furthermore, they are a force for evil and immorality, and deserve our calumny, not our reverence.
Perhaps counterintuitively, if we showered them with calumny, we'd be doing them a favor. Or at least doing future generations of potential soldiers a favor.
Certainly I'd like to preserve my 3 childrens' lives (ages 18, 18 and 17) and prevent them from being enslaved and their lives sacrificed by the State. Although they were raised heavily immersed in a philosophical/paleo-libertarian credo, and thus have a healthy (unhealthy? lol) disdain, distrust and cynicism toward government, of course that won't protect them, come the next World War and likely conscription. They assure me they would never join the military no matter what---but who knows...by then the State may be executing "traitors" and "insurgents" for refusing to "protect the Fatherland."
Good for you, Bretigne. I generally go with the low-key "Yes I support the troops, I most strongly bringing them home from around the world!"
Brilliant. EXACTLY my feelings and have been for a long time. You might like this: https://twitter.com/xosallyo/status/1663524430692188161
Thanks!
Kudos to you for being so bold in writing something like this. I'm not going to leap out and say I agree 100% at this point but I will say this post has be thinking and considering. I've never seen such a clear-minded dissent of the military and appreciate your honesty and courage.
Thank you!
No, I Don't Support the Troops
by @Bretigne Shaffer
at tinyurl.com/y3fdf8yv
Here's why...
*****************************************
and neither do I
ever do support the lie
for freedom they die
Thank you, Bretigne for having the courage to write and share this. I agree 100%. And the (perhaps ironic?) thing is, I have spent the last 20 years married to a Marine Corps officer (now retired). During that time, we lived in multiple duty stations, here and overseas, and he served two 7-month tours in Iraq - one when I was pregnant with our first child, the other when that child was only a year old. When we met, I was naive (and thus ambivalent) about the military and war. But living the 'military life' kinda forces you to take an active interest in politics and foreign policy, especially in war time. And through that active involvement, I learned so much about our country's history, especially the wars we fought and (the REAL reasons) why, and the atrocities our government has committed in the name of "freedom and democracy." Much of it was shocking to learn, and resulted in a significant cognitive dissonance as I struggled to reconcile the military's propaganda with what I was discovering through my own research. Needless to say, when I shared this 'taboo' knowledge with my husband, it caused some friction (to put it mildly), as he was of course fully drunk on the military/war Kool-Aid. Fortunately, he started to 'sober up' toward the end of his military career, and now with 20/20 hindsight, his views have come to (mostly) align with mine. And we have been united in ensuring that our son, who turns 18 next year, thankfully has vastly different career goals!
By the way, are you able to provide an update on "Kate"?
I respect your right to your opinion. That said, I think you lack knowledge of the wars the United States has fought, because if you had this knowledge, you would know that we always fought for our own freedom or that of others. And indirectly, the freedom of others has an impact on us. For example, the war in Viet Nam (one of the most maligned) kept most of Southeast Asia from turning communist. That is to our direct benefit. The war in Iraq took out a tyrant who was murdering his own people in the most hideous ways. Our participation in WWII saved untold millions from the tyranny of Hitler, and make no mistake: after conquering Europe, he would have come for us. People volunteered and died to preserve your freedom. So I respectfully disagree with your position. I am aware of the corruption. I decry it. But opposing legitimate action does not cure the corruption, it entrenches it.
You are aware that our side lost the war in Vietnam, yes?
Actually, this is a very good example of why many people need more information. We had actually WON the war, but were forced to pull out by politicians back home. But our presence preserved the lives of 1/4 of Cambodia's population while we were there. Those people were killed in forced marches as soon as we left.
Is that the same Cambodian population that the US bombed into oblivion and drove into the arms of the murderous Khmer Rouge? Your concern seems very selective.
Kissinger just hit 100, that's one year per over one thousand dead Cambodians' blood on his hands
I am not at all convinced that Kissinger was really on the side of the Constitution and the American people.
I think there were a lot of bad decisions in all wars the human race has ever been involved in. I am not justifying any bad decisions.
My youngest son decided to join the Army. I wasn't happy about his decision, but he did it for the same reason as your young friend. He has served honorably, has not killed anyone, and has provided for his family. We didn't have the money to pay for college for him. He was a chaplain's assistant and helped in the rebuilding of Iraq. In spite of my disagreement with his choice. I am proud of him.
We can oppose war and still acknowledge that individuals join the military to help defend our country and have the right motives. The bad decisions are not their fault. We have lived in relative freedom for two centuries, but are now losing our liberties rapidly. We need honorable people to step in and put things right.
Teach your values to your son, and hope and pray he abides by them when he is older. Not all of my children did so. He wasn't one of those.
I am not interested in a long and hot debate. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.
Oh my, it appears you have proven Bretigne's entire point. Regarding Vietnam, I'd highly recommend reading Seymour Hersh's earlier writings, especially his (award-winning) coverage of the My Lai massacre, as well as Gareth Porter's coverage of the Hue massacre.
Bretigne is 100% correct. With the exception of the Revolutionary War, every single foreign war the US has been "involved" in has been for nefarious, imperialist reasons. Yes, even the world wars. If you're genuinely interested in learning actual history, try setting aside what you've read in the school textbooks, heard in the mainstream media and from "expert" pundits, and research both independent sources that practice truly investigate journalism, as well as the historians who have not been bought by the US security state.
Well, not exactly. People make assumptions about me even though they don't know me. I never learned anything about any of the wars in school. I don't read stuff that comes from mainstream media; I always read the stuff from dissenters and offbeat sources. And I haven't watched even 5 minutes of TV at a time since 2001. So don't make assumptions about my sources.
Let me give you another example. Based on my own research and common sense, I never locked down, or wore a mask. I even turned away from necessary surgery because they would not admit me without a mask. I haven't had the shots, and I have no intentions of ever submitting.
I am well aware of the atrocities. They weren't supposed to happen. But most of our troops serve honorably, and go out of their way to protect civilians, even to risking their own lives. While we can dissent from wars and their purpose, the troops don't deserve our scorn, because they only serve honorably and have nothing to do with policy. Obviously people who commit atrocities need to be tried and punished. The atrocities are not what determines if a war is a just war.
Note that our actions in Korea and Viet Nam have kept most of Southeast Asia free of communism. That is in our national interest.
Looking at each war we've engaged in, I don't find imperialism motivating most. WWII certainly wasn't such a war. Neither were Korea, Viet Nam, or Iraq. Afghanistan simply is an impossible situation; I see no evidence there is imperialism involved. As long as we were there, at least girls had a right to get an education, to go to school.
Too many Americans think that we are the only people on earth who are entitled to the rights God gave to all people. We hoard our privileges. That's wrong. We should not enter a war unless there is national interest involved. That's why Ukraine is none of our business. In general Republican presidents stick to wars where we have a national interest, while Democrats make decisions where wars are either none of our business, or contrary to our national interests. Pulling out of Afghanistan the way we did is shameful. The perp committed treason as far as I am concerned.
Simply put, we have a human duty to rescue those under oppression if we can. We don't have the ability to rescue everyone, so national interest is a must. We should not maintain open borders just because other people have needs. Our first duty is to protect our own people.
We made a big mistake allowing the Soviet Union to keep control of eastern European nations. We have made other egregious mistakes. This is bad leadership. It has nothing to do with the troops.
The problem as I see it with both you and Bretigne is oversimplification, and ignoring the motivation of people who join the military. People don't join the military to be imperialists. There is a distinction between the motives of the leadership and the motives of the troops. The troops are willing to give up their rights to protect the rest of us. Given that we are not imperialists, that argument should never be raised. No imperialist nation ever rebuilt a conquered nation and then withdrew voluntarily. America does that. Maintaining a base is not the same thing as continued occupation. While I think we should close most of those bases, their existence is not evidence for imperialism. Maintaining just enough force to support the locals in preserving their freedom is not imperialism either. Imperialism involves exploiting the natural resources of a conquered nation. We do not do that. End of story.
You mistake the point of my disdain. I don't scorn the troops. I scorn the safe old men who decide we need to send young brave men and women into unconstitutional battle. Who benefits? And I want a complete answer.
I was going to try to respond with reasonable comments, until I read this: "And I want a complete answer." You made a hostile DEMAND. That is not an honest dialog. I am not your slave. Good-bye.
Yes, I assumed that your answer would include only who "won" the conflict (as if anyone wins) rather than the complete answer of who benefits from ALL of the spoils of war.
I appreciate that you didn't mask or do any of that nonsense.
Our constitution allows only for defending our borders. It does not allow a standing army unless revisited every 2 years. It does not allow us to be the policemen of the world. Have we stopped communism? No. We've only weakened our military.
I have news for you.
Check out President Thomas Jefferson and his war on the Barbary Pirates. Better to keep our enemies in their own territory than fight a war on our own, where our own people will be subject to sudden unexpected death.
I have declined to answer your other questions because of your hostile DEMAND. I will continue to do so.
Your arguments sound exactly like the "history" we're spoon-fed by our government and mainstream media, so I felt it safe to assume what your sources are.
I'm glad to hear you stuck to your convictions during the scamdemic, but that is irrelevant to this conversation about history.
"The atrocities are not what determines if a war is a just war." -- Again, you're proving Bretigne's point. There have been NO "just" wars since 1783, because they have all been for imperialist objectives, despite your insistence that WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq weren't. They absolutely were. And despite claiming your sources are "dissenting and offbeat," your views of history are very much aligned with the mainstream/Establishment narrative.
Preventing the spread of Communism is only of ECONOMIC interest to US elites; it is not a national security threat, as govt officials and their lapdog media wish us to believe (in order to manufacture our consent for their imperialistic wars).
NO, we do NOT have a "human duty to rescue those under oppression." Despite that propaganda being used as a guise for our military interventions and regime change efforts, it is NEVER really about "human rights" or "spreading democracy" or "protecting our rights/freedoms/security." It's only ever about overthrowing governments that don't align with our economic interests and/or to exploit/extract a country's resources (e.g. fossil fuels, precious metals, agricultural land or human labor). We don't TRULY care about the people in those countries, as evidenced by the shambles in which we leave each one once we've gotten what we've wanted from them. Rebuilding? Really? Did we do that in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Vietnam? Syria? Libya? But for the sake of argument, if it were truly for those benevolent reasons, it is both the height of hubris and ignorance for us to believe those vastly different cultures even WANT our American values and form of government. U.S. bases around the world are to protect OUR interests in those regions, NOT theirs.
"People don't join the military to be imperialists." -- This time you've missed Bretigne's point, which is that those people joined BECAUSE of the Establishment's propaganda about "humanitarianism" and "democracy," which continues even during their service so they remain completely unaware of what they're REALLY fighting for. Only the top brass know the real reasons.
Again, I invite you to seek out historians who are NOT funded by the government or special interests. There are many, but here's a good one to start with, if you are truly interested in understanding REAL history: https://canadianpatriot.org/
Amen.
Thank you for expressing your OPINION so clearly.
I'll tackle the easy one first. Rebuilding. In Iraq. This is because I have PERSONAL knowledge of the rebuilding effort there, in the form of a pile of photographs of the rebuilding, coming from a very, very close family member. He was involved in rebuilding schools, and a stadium. In Iraq.
As for Afghanistan and Vietnam, there is no opportunity to rebuild because politicians forced us to pull out before rebuilding could take place. We also don't have free rein in Syria or Libya. Nor have we conquered either nation or ousted their leadership.
You do not speak for what people of other cultures want. If you think I do not, then you do not by the very same definition. I don't know your background, but I have academic background in other countries and cultures.
No, I do not buy into propaganda from any official source. I don't read or watch their propaganda. I get my information from offbeat sources. Your claim to the contrary is simply ignorance on your part. You don't know me, or my sources. Furthermore, I am not limited to English language sources, since I read a number of other languages. I also get emails from a number of foreign news sources.
Just for kicks, read The Mouse That Roared. It's fiction, but based on a common attitude among the people of many foreign nations.
If you think the fight against communism and Hitler were just economic, think again. Of course, you will learn the hard way when the Chinese take over America, but then it will be too late. We do NOT take the natural resources from a conquered nation. We TRADE for what we want.
There are a few of us who just happen to believe that all people, worldwide, are made in God's image and God gave them the same unalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence. We cannot rescue the world. We don't have the means. But it should be first and foremost in our minds that it is EVIL to want to hoard the blessings of liberty ourselves, and simply let everyone else be run roughshod over. If we truly acted always with this in mind, we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem. Why do people want to get INTO our country? Why do they want to ESCAPE communist nations? It gripes the tar out of me that so many people are callous toward our fellow human beings. So whenever there is a national interest involved (because we have been attacked), in the process of nullifying the threat, we have every right to help those living under tyranny. We also have the right to make and honor treaties with other free nations.
I'm not so keen on historians. I prefer eyewitnesses.
You won't persuade me with your disregard for the well being of other humans who long for the same rights to life, liberty, and property lawfully acquired. It was a good attempt. But you get no brownie points.
Vietnam was a drug war. Bone up.
Viet Nam was the United States honoring a treaty with France. You bone up.
So what was the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Did France make us do that?
These were not "wars". And not a single one, besides the Revolutionary, were fought for OUR freedoms.