They died for your freedom

[epiphany]

They most certainly died in WW2 to stop Hitler permanently taking over the whole of Europe. Anyone who thinks differently is in cloud cuckoo land.

 

And I'm sure you'd agree we can't keep using WWII as a reason to continually recite the phrase "they die(d) for our freedom" as a justification for all following conflicts.

[danny11]

what about iraq war? i suppose they did in a way otherwise we could end up with no petrol then we cant drive anywhere!

Falklands war?

Vietnam?

[epiphany]

what about iraq war? i suppose they did in a way otherwise we could end up with no petrol then we cant drive anywhere!

 

Well if people want to be more specific about what they mean when they use the word "freedom" I'd welcome the clarification!

[Harleyman]

And I'm sure you'd agree we can't keep using WWII as a reason to continually recite the phrase "they die(d) for our freedom" as a justification for all following conflicts.

 

They think about their mothers, families, wives and sweethearts when they're about to die.

"Dying for freedom" doesnt exist in that world but if people want to write such things on memorials then it's society's way of honouring them. Many families who've suffered the loss of a son or daughter appreciate that recognition of their sacrifice actually

[epiphany]

They think about their mothers, families, wives and sweethearts when they're about to die.

"Dying for freedom" doesnt exist in that world but if people want to write such things on memorials then it's society's way of honouring them. Many families who've suffered the loss of a son or daughter appreciate that recognition of their sacrifice actually

 

I've addressed that emotional dilemma. It doesn't change the fact that, regardless of personal loss, reciting the line for any given conflict in which servicemen and women have unnecessarily been killed, or for reasons we cannot be certain of, is at the least ignorant and, when used by our leaders, highly irresponsible and deceptive.

[Harleyman]

I've addressed that emotional dilemma. It doesn't change the fact that, regardless of personal loss, reciting the line for any given conflict in which servicemen and women have unnecessarily been killed, or for reasons we cannot be certain of, is at the least ignorant and, when used by our leaders, highly irresponsible and deceptive.

 

So what would you expect leaders of a country to say to the bereaved?

"You son's life was unnecesarily lost in a war that we shouldn't be sending our soldiers to" That would go down very well wouldn't it ?

 

People join the service because either they feel they are doing the right thing by serving their country or for the benefits that serving in the military bestow on them. The military hierarchy are your bosses. They train you, keep you fit, take care of your medical requirements, clothe, feed, house and pay you and if you serve long enough award a lifetime pension. Many recruits join up because they're caught up in dead end jobs in civilian life, bored stupid and like the opportunity to see a bit of the world which they couldn't afford to do otherwise. There's also the comradeship factor. The best friends you'll ever make and keep are the guys you served with in the military. There's a special bond that no civilian could ever understand.

 

When the day comes that you are ordered to a particular theater of operations you pack up your gear and start moving. Very, very few complain because this was expected to happen and is just part of the job.

Sitting out your service time in a barrack room out of harm's way isn't part of the deal and no recruit expects that to happen.

 

War sucks alright and when yiou've experienced combat it's not something you want to remember much about but armies exist to serve the interests of their country and that's just the way it is. It's part of the contract you agreed to

 

Families who have lost loved ones deserve to have the respect and consideration they deserve, not a cold douche instead.

[meyouus]

what about iraq war? i suppose they did in a way otherwise we could end up with no petrol then we cant drive anywhere!

Falklands war?

Vietnam?

 

the Falklands war was about regaining that which was taken by force.

[Cavegirl]

Well if people want to be more specific about what they mean when they use the word "freedom" I'd welcome the clarification!

 

Ah you're ahead of me Piph! I've been meaning to start a similar thread based on the idea of 'freedom' as it's been coming up a lot in my general reading of late.

 

I think that 'freedom' is a very difficult concept to clarify because it can mean many different things and it can be represented on a relative scale with some people accepting a situation as representing freedom more readily than others might. It's a very emotive word, nobody wants to believe themselves to not be free because that would essentially be admitting that we are somehow enslaved or that we have no control over our lives, but anyone who believes that they are free today is essentially duping themselves.

 

When a government says that their army is 'fighting for your freedom' it can be a true(ish) statement if you consider 'freedom' to be a relative term relating to political liberties. If a politically liberal state is fighting against a politically more totalitarian state then certainly the liberal state can argue that they are fighting for liberty or political freedoms.

 

However, I think it's important to realise that governments exist at the top of very complex hierarchical societies. All complex systems require rules and regulations or they tend to be chaotic and unproductive. As societies have evolved over the past 10,000 years from simple kinship groups, to tribes, to chiefdoms and feudal systems and finally into government led states each new adaptation has led to further regulation upon social behaviours and to more power and control being amassed at higher and later on at intermediate levels of the hierarchy. Every 'problem' that has arisen in society over time has had to be regulated away somehow and thousands of years worth of regulatory controlled 'problems' has led to less and less freedom for the individual. Today those at the bottom of the social hierarchy are now a very very long way from political 'freedom' no matter how liberal the state or how representative the democratic system of election may be.

 

I say this because it makes it clear that governments logically can't send their armies in to fight for freedom. In fact during any war we see, historically, a huge rise in the regulations imposed on the masses (think of the Terrorism Act, rationing, conscription etc) and so you could argue that it is exactly representative of the 'double think' that you mentioned. It is precisely a lack of an individual's political freedom that governments require in order to exist.

 

Freedom exists of course in other forms and scenarios, but a discussion of political freedom seems most relevent to this thread.

[HeadingNorth]

There are two different issues here, and I'm not sure which one the OP was after.

 

When a soldier has died in combat, it would be churlish at best to give him an epitaph such as "gave his life in a pointless war that served nobody any good." Even in cases where it is obviously true!

 

On the other hand, it is obviously true, some of the time, that wars are being fought which are nothing to do with "our freedom." It is tautologous, in fact - since if one side if fighting for the freedom of some group of people, the enemy they're fighting against, must be fighting to suppress it.

 

I'm quite happy to voice my conviction that Britain has often fought wars which were nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom of the British people, and that our politicians have used such platitudes as nothing more than propaganda fodder, to persuade the public that it's a war we should be supporting. I wouldn't waste my breath saying all that to a serving soldier, though; I'd say it to the politicians. The soldiers are there to defend our lives, as well as our freedoms; that they also get sent on governmental ego-trips and pointless excursions is not their fault.

[epiphany]

So what would you expect leaders of a country to say to the bereaved?

"You son's life was unnecesarily lost in a war that we shouldn't be sending our soldiers to" That would go down very well wouldn't it ?

 

No, that's harsh. But it's worth challenging those who just like to think every conflict is about protecting our freedom, or concerned with humanity at all. This kind of blind patriotism and trust in our leaders is dangerous for obvious reasons.

 

 

People join the service because either they feel they are doing the right thing by serving their country or for the benefits that serving in the military bestow on them. The military hierarchy are your bosses. They train you, keep you fit, take care of your medical requirements, clothe, feed, house and pay you and if you serve long enough award a lifetime pension. Many recruits join up because they're caught up in dead end jobs in civilian life, bored stupid and like the opportunity to see a bit of the world which they couldn't afford to do otherwise. There's also the comradeship factor. The best friends you'll ever make and keep are the guys you served with in the military. There's a special bond that no civilian could ever understand.

 

When the day comes that you are ordered to a particular theater of operations you pack up your gear and start moving. Very, very few complain because this was expected to happen and is just part of the job.

Sitting out your service time in a barrack room out of harm's way isn't part of the deal and no recruit expects that to happen.

 

War sucks alright and when yiou've experienced combat it's not something you want to remember much about but armies exist to serve the interests of their country and that's just the way it is. It's part of the contract you agreed to

 

Families who have lost loved ones deserve to have the respect and consideration they deserve, not a cold douche instead.

 

Nothing I disagree with there, although I don't see how it relates to the point I was trying to make about people, bereaved or not, supporting the bogus justification for needless and most likely self interested conflicts that our leaders constantly wheel out.

 

We have to identify and challenge the rhetoric in the first place otherwise we're stuck in the rut of perpetuating the freedom/protection myth for the sake of comforting the bereaved.