imported post
I'll make one attempt to defend what I said previously. It probably won't change anyone's mind, but hopefully it can help clarify some things.
There are bases on which I oppose the current war in Iraq, as well as further military action in the area. There's an ideological and a practical argument. First, it is not our place to "liberate" peoples we feel are in need of liberating. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has the right to "spread freedom" and "democracy"? Where does it even mention "democracy" in the Constitution? Ah, yes, nowhere. And why start with Iraq? Iraq was a fairly non-threatening country that wasn't all that close to the top of the list of countries that abused human rights the most. If the US government is so good-intentioned and wanting to liberate people, they'd start with China where they could help more than billion people. But wait... they own us. Iraq was (what we thought was) an easy target. But I digress. Just like how I don't support social welfare programs, I don't support the international version of social welfare, and that about puts it in the simplist way.
Then there's the question of what version of "freedom" we're spreading. If you think America is a free country, try walking on a plane with a bottle of water. Try buying a machine gun in a face-to-face transaction. Try smoking marijuana. We're spreading Western-ism, not freedom, which I'm not entirely sure is good for the United States, let alone any other country. And that brings me to practical issues...
Unfortunately, the neo-con theory on why terrorism exists is because evil people who haven't found Jesus hate America for no reason. Therefore, their solution is to kill the evil people and force Christian American-ism down the throats of the people they can't kill. The truth is that terrorism exists because people resort to extreme means when their ways of life are being destroyed. For the past, what, 50 years? 70 years? ...the United States has been playing sides in Southern Asia through giving financial aid, weapons, training, and even military force to the countries and factions we felt would be advantageous to be put in a position of power. Yet "changing regimes" for so many decades has only resulted in more people hating America, and have invited more terrorist attacks. The people in Iraq who voice opposition to the US troop presence are typically branded as "extremists", "Muslims", and/or "ungrateful". Maybe they have a legitimate reason to be upset. After all, don't we, as freedom-loving Americans, get pissed off at the idea of the United Nations' sending "election observers" to oversee our elections? Or at any other action of the United Nations that attempts to "improve conditions" in America? I get a feeling that if the United Nations one day woke up and got an idea of what real freedom is, and decided to invade America in order to "liberate" us to a condition described in our Constitution, many of the people crying to liberate other countries might take a different view when the United States is the one being liberated. People don't like other people telling them what to do, to summarize this point, and when the former get pissed off, terrorism happens.
I don't fall into the blind patriotism that is modern America. I like the American people, even though I don't like the current government, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But I don't confuse that with some idea that the United States holds some position of world leadership. Yes, we're a great country (or once was...), but that doesn't mean we get to act as world policemen. Especially when that position is disadvantageous to the American people... you know, by inviting terrorism that then invites totalitarian domestic policy.
Anyhow, I respect soliders and retired soldiers who feel that they were and are protecting America and our freedom. Even if I don't agree with the veracity of that statement right now. But believe it or not, soldiers are perhaps the most exploited group of people in the United States. "It's for the soliders" is the new "it's for safety". Whether its for national unity, or to defend one's own military service, or to define patriotic-sounding values, or to win elections, it's wrong. Soldiers either know the job for which they've signed up, and understand the risk and consequences, or they don't know the job and were misled by military recruiters. I respect the former, but I don't treat them as martyrs. I respect soldiers the same way that I respect LEOs. I might not agree with most of the mission given to them by the government, but I respect their intentions.
That brings me to this slew of "thank the soldiers" threads. The closest connection I can make, if I try, is that soldiers carry guns in combat, and thus that relates to the auxilliary topic of guns, which is secondary to the primary topic of open carry and our rights. Explain how thanking our soldiers advances our freedoms in this country, without using the neo-con straw man soundbytes, and I'll consider it. Not that it means much because, as I said, "it's for the soldiers" and therefore no one can be against it.
Now, I guess it's time to ad hominem me into oblivion... :uhoh:
