What freedom?

[Bangkok Hibby]

Exactly what freedoms are we supposed to thank army vets here and in USA for?
WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan? Exactly what is it that millions of people died for?

[James310]

Maybe we are not all Nazis and killing Jews and disabled people? That's a start.

[Bangkok Hibby]

Maybe we are not all Nazis and killing Jews and disabled people? That's a start.

OK but it was a serious question. Do you really think that would be how Europe would have turned out? Are you saying all the countries Germany conquered would be converted to Nazism at the end of the war? How long would that have lasted? Maybe I should have taken WW2 out of the question. What about all the other conflicts since then? What freedoms are we celebrating exactly?

[Allant1981]

so for a start, WW2 doesnt even need explained, the korean war was all about trying to stop the slaughter of millions of koreans so not a direct freedom for british people but thats not what the army or the UN is always there for. Vietnam is obviously a very debated topic but again surely americas involvement was to stop a takeover by the communists, could again argue they got involved for the benefit of many Vietnamese people but there will always be another argument. I have my own view on the other 3 but surely keeping people safe in the own country has to be appreciated. But im sure you know all that anyway

[Bangkok Hibby]

so for a start, WW2 doesnt even need explained, the korean war was all about trying to stop the slaughter of millions of koreans so not a direct freedom for british people but thats not what the army or the UN is always there for. Vietnam is obviously a very debated topic but again surely americas involvement was to stop a takeover by the communists, could again argue they got involved for the benefit of many Vietnamese people but there will always be another argument. I have my own view on the other 3 but surely keeping people safe in the own country has to be appreciated. But im sure you know all that anyway

I was going to say in my opening comment "for the pedants out there I'm not asking for the reasons behind these wars" but thought maybe no need. I was wrong! Can anyone tell me exactly what people mean when referring to ANY conflict nowadays, both here but especially in USA when they continually say "they fought or are fighting for our freedom"

[Just Alf]

Your whole premise for this thread is lost as soon as you used the word "celebrate". It is anything but "celebrate".

It's to remember what's happened to people on all sides and by remembering, hopefully people won't be so keen to go down that line again (often a forlorn hope to be fair).



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

About to go to work so can't get into this to deeply but on that specific question... It's too big!

I think every conflict has different reasons, WW2 was obvious, Iraq less so.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Bangkok Hibby]

A view from an American forum

In the last 100 years, how many times has the US military ever been engaged in a conflict that was truly about fighting for our freedom? I'm struggling to think of a single instance.

Neither of the World Wars was about American freedom. None of the conflicts in which the US murdered millions in order to stop people in a different country from establishing communist systems was about American freedoms.

No, the idea of the US military “fighting for our freedoms" is nothing more than propaganda meant to make imperialism smell like a rose.

[Bangkok Hibby]

I would suggest it's even more nonsensical for Brits to believe our soldiers are fighting and dying for our "freedom"

[JeMeSouviens]

WW2 obviously stands out due to the genuine threat of invasion of GB and the unquestioned evillness of the Nazis.

The others consisted of fighting for our perceived national advantage/strategic objectives. Nobody is arguing with that, surely?

Part of our strategic objective is promulgating liberal democracy. We do live in a very free society and that is a valuable thing we shouldn't lose sight of, imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

The freedom for you to express your opinion on social media. Many people who've lost family members in both world wars would probably take objection to your post but still you have the freedom to voice your opinion. If the UK/Scotland had been on the losing side in either of those wars that might not have been the case.

You just have to look at other totalitarian regimes at present to see the freedoms you enjoy that the people living there don't. There's also an argument to be made that you might not even be alive had the wars continued with a different conclusion.

[Smartie]

You could argue that even the unpalatable or illegal wars that have been fought on our behalf contribute towards the standard of living we have today.

We have the freedom to burn fossil fuels in our cars and go anywhere we please partly due to our dodgy oil wars. We live in one of the most prosperous nations in the planet, much of it built on our imperial past. With that prosperity comes a freedom that many can't enjoy.

Whilst we're not condoning the reasons behind these wars or praising the leaders who chose to fight them, are we not acknowledging the contributions of those who had to stand and fight whether they believed in what they were doing or not?

(And that's before you get involved with the likes of WW2 when we were clearly fighting for a greater good against a terrible evil?)

[heretoday]

I would suggest it's even more nonsensical for Brits to believe our soldiers are fighting and dying for our "freedom"

I dunno about today's professional soldiers but the conscripts who went off to both World wars died for our freedom whether they liked it or not!

[lord bunberry]

A view from an American forum

In the last 100 years, how many times has the US military ever been engaged in a conflict that was truly about fighting for our freedom? I'm struggling to think of a single instance.

Neither of the World Wars was about American freedom. None of the conflicts in which the US murdered millions in order to stop people in a different country from establishing communist systems was about American freedoms.

No, the idea of the US military “fighting for our freedoms" is nothing more than propaganda meant to make imperialism smell like a rose.
WW2 was certainly about American freedom. Japan had already attacked America and hitler was conspiring with the Mexicans to attack America in the south.

[Hibrandenburg]

WW2 was certainly about American freedom. Japan had already attacked America and hitler was conspiring with the Mexicans to attack America in the south.

I was going to answer the same but thought I'd either be preaching to the self inflicted ignorant or feeding a troll.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The freedom for you to express your opinion on social media. Many people who've lost family members in both world wars would probably take objection to your post but still you have the freedom to voice your opinion. If the UK/Scotland had been on the losing side in either of those wars that might not have been the case.

You just have to look at other totalitarian regimes at present to see the freedoms you enjoy that the people living there don't. There's also an argument to be made that you might not even be alive had the wars continued with a different conclusion.

I think you've answered the OP well there, whilst biting your tongue at the same time, I admire your restraint. 👍

[Ryan69]

WW2 was certainly about American freedom. Japan had already attacked America and hitler was conspiring with the Mexicans to attack America in the south.

They could of stopped Japan had they wanted too though.
They knew of an impending attack....and moved alot of ships out.

They were just looking for a reason too get involved.

[Slavers]

Are all wars are bankers wars?

How many times have we been lied to for the reasons to go to war in the first place? Iraq, Libya & Syria.

[G B Young]

Remembrance Day is rooted in taking time to reflect on the massive and tragic human cost of the First World War, with this year especially focused on those origins due to it being the centenary of the war ending. The first Remembrance Day was held exactly a year after the war's end. I don't really see why some folk choose to get so worked about it all, though nor do I agree with the more recent 'commercialisation' of what should be a simple, sombre time of reflection. It's an individual decision whether or not to commemorate the occasion or wear a poppy.

[Hibrandenburg]

They could of stopped Japan had they wanted too though.
They knew of an impending attack....and moved alot of ships out.

They were just looking for a reason too get involved.

"have", "to" and "a lot".

[Bristolhibby]

A view from an American forum

In the last 100 years, how many times has the US military ever been engaged in a conflict that was truly about fighting for our freedom? I'm struggling to think of a single instance.

Neither of the World Wars was about American freedom. None of the conflicts in which the US murdered millions in order to stop people in a different country from establishing communist systems was about American freedoms.

No, the idea of the US military “fighting for our freedoms" is nothing more than propaganda meant to make imperialism smell like a rose.

Pearl Harbour? The Aleutian Islands, Guam.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutian-islands#section_1

J

[Hibrandenburg]

I think you've answered the OP well there, whilst biting your tongue at the same time, I admire your restraint. 👍

Oh dear, was it that obvious. :wink:

[lord bunberry]

They could of stopped Japan had they wanted too though.
They knew of an impending attack....and moved alot of ships out.

They were just looking for a reason too get involved.
Would an imminent attack by Japan not have been reason enough? The evidence that the nazis were colluding with the Mexicans to attack also had a major bearing on their decision to join the war.

[Bangkok Hibby]

I was going to answer the same but thought I'd either be preaching to the self inflicted ignorant or feeding a troll.

Good to have the moral high ground?

[Bangkok Hibby]

Are all wars are bankers wars?

How many times have we been lied to for the reasons to go to war in the first place? Iraq, Libya & Syria.

Pretty much my point. Pity most are choosing to ignore it

[CropleyWasGod]

Pretty much my point. Pity most are choosing to ignore it

I'm not sure they're ignoring it, but they are putting across an alternative view.

[Bangkok Hibby]

I'm not sure they're ignoring it, but they are putting across an alternative view.

In this case its the same thing isn't it? Ive asked a question and its not really been answered. I actually agree with almost everything thats been said about the world wars and people in other countries. Just wondering why people still say our forces are fighting for our freedom

[CropleyWasGod]

In this case its the same thing isn't it? Ive asked a question and its not really been answered. I actually agree with almost everything thats been said about the world wars and people in other countries. Just wondering why our freedom is still used as a reason for our forces to be anywhere these days

Is it, though?

Genuine question. I've not seen any of the more recent wars being justified by use of the F word. Safety, yes. Protection of interests, yes. Regime change, yes. Protection of democracy, yes. I'm not necessarily saying that these were all valid reasons for the wars in question, but my point is I can't remember any UK politician using that word to justify any military action.

[Bangkok Hibby]

Is it, though?

Genuine question. I've not seen any of the more recent wars being justified by use of the F word. Safety, yes. Protection of interests, yes. Regime change, yes. Protection of democracy, yes. I'm not necessarily saying that these were all valid reasons for the wars in question, but my point is I can't remember any UK politician using that word to justify any military action.
Ah ive edited my post before your reply...badly worded and I agree with you.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah ive edited my post before your reply...badly worded and I agree with you.

Same point, though. I'm not sure people (other than those who don't understand the issues) actually do say that.

[Bangkok Hibby]

Same point, though. I'm not sure people (other than those who don't understand the issues) actually do say that.

One of the reasons I asked the question was because I witnessed a very long argument between a pacifist and at least a dozen rednecks on another forum. The poor guy was being torn to ribbons by the mob, calling him some really unpleasant names but the thing that came across the most was the fact that they all thought their countrymen were fighting for their freedom. Its bollocks surely?

[Bristolhibby]

One of the reasons I asked the question was because I witnessed a very long argument between a pacifist and at least a dozen rednecks on another forum. The poor guy was being torn to ribbons by the mob, calling him some really unpleasant names but the thing that came across the most was the fact that they all thought their countrymen were fighting for their freedom. Its bollocks surely?

Suppose, unless you are under attack, are you fighting for your personal freedom?

Here’s one, during the troubles where Northern Ireland and mainland Britain was being bombed. Were the UKs soldiers fighting to preserve the freedom of its citizens not to be bombed? Or were the IRA fighting for the freedom of their repressed population? Or is it both?

J

[Hibrandenburg]

One of the reasons I asked the question was because I witnessed a very long argument between a pacifist and at least a dozen rednecks on another forum. The poor guy was being torn to ribbons by the mob, calling him some really unpleasant names but the thing that came across the most was the fact that they all thought their countrymen were fighting for their freedom. Its bollocks surely?

Internet forums are rarely a great source of factual information, especially one's with a Redneck quota of 12/1. Unless you want to learn about beer and catfish fishing, then you might learn something. Was it Kickback?

[McD]

One of the reasons I asked the question was because I witnessed a very long argument between a pacifist and at least a dozen rednecks on another forum. The poor guy was being torn to ribbons by the mob, calling him some really unpleasant names but the thing that came across the most was the fact that they all thought their countrymen were fighting for their freedom. Its bollocks surely?


Your use of the term ‘rednecks’ implies that they were (presumably) American, am I right in assuming that?



americans tend to bandy the word freedom around quite liberally, and tend to think everything their armed forces/govt are doing is to protect freedom and their way of life.

they refer to their country as home of the brave and land of the free remember


i haven’t heard anyone else talking about recent wars being about our personal freedom

[Future17]

I can't say I've ever heard anyone in this country saying the armed forces were fighting for our freedom in relation to any conflict since WW2.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The OP is fishing as far as I'm concerned, all very strange. 😔

[Bangkok Hibby]

The OP is fishing as far as I'm concerned, all very strange. 😔

Fishing for an answer to my question maybe? All very strange you think anything else.

[Future17]

Fishing for an answer to my question maybe? All very strange you think anything else.

It's a pretty poorly worded question though, which is probably why we've got over a page of decent responses, but you still don't consider it's been answered.

[Pete]

I can't say I've ever heard anyone in this country saying the armed forces were fighting for our freedom in relation to any conflict since WW2.

I’ve heard loads. Those serving in Argentina, Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq were fighting for our freedom and defending our nation.

Probably more to do with the whole poppy thing becoming politicised and morphing into something it really shouldn’t.

And the OP has a point. One thing I see regularly is the minute freedom is defined in any abstract way, you start to see those who can’t see past the traditional, westernised way of thinking come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Personally, I’d advise them not to go there and stick to rememberance.

[pollution]

The OP is fishing as far as I'm concerned, all very strange. 😔


I agree. Unless he is 13 years old he needs to find a girlfriend.

[Fife-Hibee]

"War for freedom" is the biggest lie humanity ever told.

As long as there is freedom, there is freedom to fight. It's a perpetual cycle and it's entirely deliberate.

The ruling classes know that war can never really come to an end. So they sell us this lie of hope and peace to keep us fighting, while they profit from the on going destruction and blood shed.

[Fife-Hibee]

I can't say I've ever heard anyone in this country saying the armed forces were fighting for our freedom in relation to any conflict since WW2.

Nope, they changed the rhetoric from "freedom" to "weapons of mass destruction". Weapons that clearly the counties they invaded had none of. Because if they had of done, you can be bloody well sure that they would not have invaded them.

[CropleyWasGod]

"War for freedom" is the biggest lie humanity ever told.

As long as there is freedom, there is freedom to fight. It's a perpetual cycle and it's entirely deliberate.

The ruling classes know that war can never really come to an end. So they sell us this lie of hope and peace to keep us fighting, while they profit from the on going destruction and blood shed.Again, who actually uses that expression?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Again, who actually uses that expression?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Almost no one. Because people want to believe so much that fighting can bring an end to fighting. Who really wants to accept that they're nothing more than a mere pawn in the game of war? It's easier to believe an illusion than to face up to the harsh reality of the truth.

[Future17]

I'm so confused by this thread.

[Fife-Hibee]

I'm so confused by this thread.

What's confusing? We were lied to. There's nothing confusing about that.

[Just Alf]

What's confusing? We were lied to. There's nothing confusing about that.Well... The thread is about "celebrating" (that was the word used in one of the posts) the deaths of those that fought and died for their country in the 1st World War, because they were fighting for our freedom.

Then we've people going on about other wars since, trying to say they're included... Then we have someone else going on and on about "freedom" as the excuse when we've all basically agreed that WMD, Iran, Syria etc are anything but.

So in terms of this actual thread where we're all pretty sure WW1, and most probably WW2 were for freedom and the others much less so (if at all)... To then bang on about freedom and then say no one's actually going on about it.

Well... That is most confusing



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[s.a.m]

Your use of the term ‘rednecks’ implies that they were (presumably) American, am I right in assuming that?



americans tend to bandy the word freedom around quite liberally, and tend to think everything their armed forces/govt are doing is to protect freedom and their way of life.

they refer to their country as home of the brave and land of the free remember


i haven’t heard anyone else talking about recent wars being about our personal freedom

I was in New York in the summer and noticed that the fire engines had as their logo, not something like, 'Protecting New Yorkers', or, 'Ever Brave, Ever Ready', or even, 'Putting Ourselves in the Way of Danger to Keep You Safe', but...'Defending Liberty'. I realise that I might be missing background to that which makes sense to native New Yorkers, and I recognise and respect that what they're doing is often heroic, but that did seem like a fairly liberal bit of bandying. They do an extremely important and worthwhile thing, but it's not generally that.

[Saturday Boy]

I like the “defending liberty “ part.

Maybe they mean the statue?

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses

Then again, in Trump’s USA, maybe not.

[-Jonesy-]

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?

Absolutely Nothin




Good god y’all

[Bangkok Hibby]

Well thought I'd let this run for a bit as the judgement squad was gathering. Admittedly I could have framed the question better but heartening to see a few understanding what I meant.
Not a troll, not 13 and had more girlfriends than I wish to remember thanks

[One Day Soon]

They could of stopped Japan had they wanted too though.
They knew of an impending attack....and moved alot of ships out.

They were just looking for a reason too get involved.

Not this pish again.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not this pish again.

:agree: Someone needs to have a look at the history books. This kind of pish really gets my goat, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but facts remain facts and anything other than the facts are lies.

[Slavers]

If we are being lied too in regards to the reasons why we have went to war since Iraq then who's idea is it go to war in the first place?

It's a deep question but one that needs to be understood.

[pollution]

If we are being lied too in regards to the reasons why we have went to war since Iraq then who's idea is it go to war in the first place?

It's a deep question but one that needs to be understood.


I can reply to this with some reasoning. After Iraq invaded Kuwait the UN accepted Kuwait's legal desire to kick out Hussein to send him home.

The UN authorised soldiers did just that. That was 1991.

As part of the peace deal the UN demanded an annual check to see that Iraq were not producing chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

In 1992 inspectors were allowed in to Iraq but were not given full access to factories etc. In 1993 ditto. In 1994 ditto. In 1995 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03.

By now the UN had deep suspicions that something was up. Who could blame them after the original invasion in 1991/2?

That was the basis of the huge international invasion, along with a dodgy dossier saying there were womd that could be fired in 45 minutes.

Saddam Hussein refused 13 years of full access. He brought it on himself and at the same time gave many states in the West what they had always wanted ie Hussein out.

Our involvement in the military was backed by a vote in Parliament to join the UN forces which we were duty bound by UN rules.

That is all that I can say with any precision.

[Bristolhibby]

But he didn’t have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Many American companies profited out of the war and subsequent “reconstruction”.

Isis has a great start to gain momentum and power on the back of the power vacuum.

J

[One Day Soon]

I can reply to this with some reasoning. After Iraq invaded Kuwait the UN accepted Kuwait's legal desire to kick out Hussein to send him home.

The UN authorised soldiers did just that. That was 1991.

As part of the peace deal the UN demanded an annual check to see that Iraq were not producing chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

In 1992 inspectors were allowed in to Iraq but were not given full access to factories etc. In 1993 ditto. In 1994 ditto. In 1995 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03.

By now the UN had deep suspicions that something was up. Who could blame them after the original invasion in 1991/2?

That was the basis of the huge international invasion, along with a dodgy dossier saying there were womd that could be fired in 45 minutes.

Saddam Hussein refused 13 years of full access. He brought it on himself and at the same time gave many states in the West what they had always wanted ie Hussein out.

Our involvement in the military was backed by a vote in Parliament to join the UN forces which we were duty bound by UN rules.

That is all that I can say with any precision.


He was a devious and deranged Canute.

[stoneyburn hibs]

He was a devious and deranged Canute.

Never mind Blair, you could say the same regarding Bush.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But he didn’t have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Many American companies profited out of the war and subsequent “reconstruction”.

Isis has a great start to gain momentum and power on the back of the power vacuum.

J

Ive always found this cause and effect argument a bit weird.

By that rationale, we shouldnt have fought WW2 because it created the Cold War.

I think the iraq war was wrong on its own merits, and i thought so at the time. But isis / aq in iraq or any other bunch of muslim headbangers had existed long before iraq, and would have sprung up elsewhere- like Afghanistan for exampe.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not this pish again.

What a stupid argument - even if it was true, japan was still attacking them surely? And yet, by your logic, that was the US war mongerers fault?

Should they have instead left their fleet their to be bombed?

Edit - not your argument ODS, the one yiu replied to!

[Bristolhibby]

Ive always found this cause and effect argument a bit weird.

By that rationale, we shouldnt have fought WW2 because it created the Cold War.

I think the iraq war was wrong on its own merits, and i thought so at the time. But isis / aq in iraq or any other bunch of muslim headbangers had existed long before iraq, and would have sprung up elsewhere- like Afghanistan for exampe.

But having a vaccumn in Iraq gave them a home to grow strong. Similarly the chaos of the Syrian Civil War gave them a base of operations.

J