Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This is likely to be a delicate subject and could degenerate rather fast, please read my whole initial post before breaking out the rage posting.
There is a certain country atm that seems to have a penchant for spreading freedom by invading other countries.
This to me seems to reek of propaganda, but if i take it as the reason behind the invasions it's seems to me not to make any sense.
If you invade a country, you destroy it's infrastructure and stability resulting in anarchy. If you put in a government without understanding the cultural norms of the country
you aid the spread of anarchy. Let's face it anarchy is the ultimate end of freedom, without markets no one can make money or buy essentials . warring warlords create the ultimate anarchy, destabilising a country and making all forms of "tax" go to one individual or organisation who does nothing for the state at large.
What I'm asking here is do dakkites believe that spreading freedom is the aims of these invasions?
More importantly- Is it possible to spread freedom by invading another country?
I understand alot of dakkites have/are in the military and i'm curious to know peoples from all countries opinions on the subject.
It is most important to focus on where these new freedom countries are going to be in a few years and not just focus on "THEY BEHEADED PEOPLE AND girls can't go to school"
Crossing my fingers but expecting to blame the victim
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
It is just a propaganda rallying cry. "For Freeeedom!" sounds much better than "For complex, likely unpalatable political goooooooals!"
I don't think one can reasonably fault most of the US' actions when viewed with an understanding of what they were really meant to accomplish, though political infighting has occasionally made unpleasant situations worse for no good reason. Geopolitics is not a warm, fluffy game, and sometimes countries have to be burned to the ground. The US hurt a great many people while fighting the Cold War, either directly or through plunging nations into chaos and civil war, and with hindsight we can say this was worth it: the Soviets were isolated and marginalized by our destruction of their would-be allies, and so an apocalyptically dangerous situation was resolved with comparatively light casualties.
In this day and age, invasion doesn't mean anything like the destruction it meant a few decades ago, at least when carried out by a paragon of restraint and accuracy (you know, by military standards) like US and NATO forces. The worst aspects of the most recent conflicts haven't been derived from the war itself, but from the lengthy post-conquest occupation, where our forces and the civilian populations have suffered from craven glorified-gangsters waging asymmetric warfare against both.
Well Anarchy is virtually true freedom in all reality. You can everything you want, or as little as you want. You're idea of freedom is probably misconstrued if you disagree. So...mission accomplished?
"You are judged in life, not by the evil you destroy, but by the light you bring to the darkness" - Reclusiarch Grimaldus of the Black Templars
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Anarchy is actually complete and total freedom, as Firehead pointed out. As we can clearly see, thats a bad thing.
Compared to an actual war, like WW2 was, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did very little collateral damage. And still very little collateral damage happens when operations are carried out.
You want true collateral damage, see Germany or Japan after WW2. There was nothing left of their cities.
Plus we did actually leave the Iraqi police forces in place and many of the officers that served under Saddam continued to serve as officers after his regime fell. So there wasn't a total collapse of all structure.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Bullockist wrote: There is a certain country atm that seems to have a penchant for spreading freedom by invading other countries.
I'd comment in depth, but unfortunately I'm not sure what country you are referring to.
Clearly Belgium.
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
Firehead158 wrote: Well Anarchy is virtually true freedom in all reality. You can everything you want, or as little as you want. You're idea of freedom is probably misconstrued if you disagree. So...mission accomplished?
You may be right in theory but in reality anarchy is the freedom to do what you want at the point of a gun (knife, sword, club), and those who don't like it who don't have a gun have the freedom to agree with you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I could never criticize Belgium. They gave us french fries.... and waffles with ice cream.
Automatically Appended Next Post: man now I'm hungry.
The belgians gave us freedom fries? why aren't they called begian fries or low country fries or even better flemish fries (those last ones may not sell)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 07:31:35
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Firehead158 wrote: Well Anarchy is virtually true freedom in all reality. You can everything you want, or as little as you want. You're idea of freedom is probably misconstrued if you disagree. So...mission accomplished?
You may be right in theory but in reality anarchy is the freedom to do what you want at the point of a gun (knife, sword, club), and those who don't like it who don't have a gun have the freedom to agree with you
Are you saying anarchy isn't all it's cracked up to be?
Who would have thought...
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
Firehead158 wrote: Well Anarchy is virtually true freedom in all reality. You can everything you want, or as little as you want. You're idea of freedom is probably misconstrued if you disagree. So...mission accomplished?
You may be right in theory but in reality anarchy is the freedom to do what you want at the point of a gun (knife, sword, club), and those who don't like it who don't have a gun have the freedom to agree with you
Are you saying anarchy isn't all it's cracked up to be?
Who would have thought...
all those punks who were wrong...who would have thought? I must admit seeing a skinny guy in an anarchy t-shirt still makes me laugh, i feel like walking up to them , finding the biggest guy aroiund , pointing at the big guy and saying" that t-shirt really should be on him".
Maybe if we make an anarchistic directorate of communism it will make communism become that utopia
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 08:00:00
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding anarchy and anarchism. It's a critically flawed and naive ideology, without question, but it should be noted that it works in its way, and quite a bit in excess of 90% of human history has been in an anarchic state (that being the part where nothing of value was done by anyone).
Anarchism functions, provided you're talking about a (community) population in the low hundreds or smaller. Within that limit, human social instinct provides sufficiently strong group coherence, with status determined by group respect more than capacity for violence.
Of course, this is unworkable with larger populations and proper economies, which are necessary for all the wondrous technologies of the modern world. History shows that anarchic situations aren't sustainable above the population limit, leading to warlordism in one form or another (organized crime, petty gangs, actual warlords, etc).
There is not, however, a sustained breakdown of the social contract: one way or another centralized authorities (even petty, highly localized one) will emerge and assert themselves, and even before that people don't trend towards openly antisocial behavior within local groups, if only because that sort of behavior tends to piss everyone else off and result in retribution or alienation by the group.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It is just a propaganda rallying cry. "For Freeeedom!" sounds much better than "For complex, likely unpalatable political goooooooals!"
I don't think one can reasonably fault most of the US' actions when viewed with an understanding of what they were really meant to accomplish, though political infighting has occasionally made unpleasant situations worse for no good reason. Geopolitics is not a warm, fluffy game, and sometimes countries have to be burned to the ground. The US hurt a great many people while fighting the Cold War, either directly or through plunging nations into chaos and civil war, and with hindsight we can say this was worth it: the Soviets were isolated and marginalized by our destruction of their would-be allies, and so an apocalyptically dangerous situation was resolved with comparatively light casualties.
In this day and age, invasion doesn't mean anything like the destruction it meant a few decades ago, at least when carried out by a paragon of restraint and accuracy (you know, by military standards) like US and NATO forces. The worst aspects of the most recent conflicts haven't been derived from the war itself, but from the lengthy post-conquest occupation, where our forces and the civilian populations have suffered from craven glorified-gangsters waging asymmetric warfare against both.
I'd agree with almost everything you said, except the bolded part. I don't think the guys engaging in asymetrical warfare with the US military machine are cowards. They might be sneaky and underhanded, they might be horrible fanatics and total scumbags, but I don't think they are cowards. I don't even really understand the outrage when they fight the way they do- what else are they supposed to do? There's no such thing as a "fair" fight against the US.
Bullockist wrote: There is a certain country atm that seems to have a penchant for spreading freedom by invading other countries.
I'd comment in depth, but unfortunately I'm not sure what country you are referring to.
Belgium, those guys are just invadin foolz EDIT: I've already been ninja'd. Good to see others finally realize the warmongering warmongers of mongertown that the Belgiums are. Seriously, they just need to stop.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 11:33:06
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Bullockist wrote: There is a certain country atm that seems to have a penchant for spreading freedom by invading other countries.
I'd comment in depth, but unfortunately I'm not sure what country you are referring to.
I tell you who.
Spoiler:
Invading a country for freedom rarely, if ever, works. Usually it just makes a mess of things and more enemies for you. As others have said though, there's usually other reasons a country is invading someone that aren't being said out loud.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 12:48:19
Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today?
Wait you think America invades countries for freedom?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
What countries specifically has the United States invaded for the stated goal of spreading "freedom", as per the OP? I'm unaware of any within my lifetime.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think that the last places we truly went into for "Freedom" was S. Korea and Vietnam. Most other places that have been "freedomized" by us have gotten there because of some incident or other (ie. US Marines died, so we launched Operation Just 'Cuz, or Saddam invaded Kuwait, a freedom loving country, so we had to fix that situation as well)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that the last places we truly went into for "Freedom" was S. Korea and Vietnam. Most other places that have been "freedomized" by us have gotten there because of some incident or other (ie. US Marines died, so we launched Operation Just 'Cuz, or Saddam invaded Kuwait, a freedom loving country, so we had to fix that situation as well)
Not even then. The only reason why the US went to war over Korea and Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. If communism wasn't involved, they wouldn't have bothered.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 13:04:39
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that the last places we truly went into for "Freedom" was S. Korea and Vietnam.
I would argue even those are wrong. The topic is "invading for freedom"; i.e. that we invaded a country we considered unfree for the express purpose of installing a "free" democracy. That's not true in either of those cases. In Vietnam we went to bolster the pre-existing government - not to overthrow it. Similarly in Korea we went in accords with a UN Security Council resolution to again, bolster the pre-existing government that we considered to be a strategic ally.
I think the absolute closest possible analogy would be Somalia, where we went to establish security for humanitarian aid. However, we didn't establish a government; nor did we overthrow one, and I'm not sure semantically that you can invade a country that has no established government - but that's splitting hairs, I think my previous point about the failure to even attempt to establish a government still keeps the example accurate.
Ouze wrote: I could never criticize Belgium. They gave us french fries.... and waffles with ice cream.
The belgians gave us freedom fries? why aren't they called begian fries or low country fries or even better flemish fries (those last ones may not sell)
Because, according to Wikipedia:
Some Belgians believe that the term "French" was introduced when American soldiers arrived in Belgium during World War I, and consequently tasted Belgian fries. They supposedly called them "French," as it was the official language of the Belgian Army at that time
So, TLDR; french fries are French in the same way that Native Americans are Indians.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 13:14:20
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
You guys are right, however I was arguing that from a standpoint of we were going into Korea and 'Nam in order to prevent the commies from taking over, and hopefully pushing more freedom throughout those regions. Basically, if we hadn't drawn a stalemate in Korea, they'd probably be a more or less unified nation under the S. Korean government (or some version of it)
And, I think that we all know we didn't lose Vietnam militarily... we lost it politically.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You guys are right, however I was arguing that from a standpoint of we were going into Korea and 'Nam in order to prevent the commies from taking over, and hopefully pushing more freedom throughout those regions. Basically, if we hadn't drawn a stalemate in Korea, they'd probably be a more or less unified nation under the S. Korean government (or some version of it)
Do you mean if we had been successful in taking North Korea?
And, I think that we all know we didn't lose Vietnam militarily... we lost it politically.
Yep. Vietnamese are badass. Even China should remember that when they get twitchy about having claims to all of Vietnam's navigable waters.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You guys are right, however I was arguing that from a standpoint of we were going into Korea and 'Nam in order to prevent the commies from taking over, and hopefully pushing more freedom throughout those regions. Basically, if we hadn't drawn a stalemate in Korea, they'd probably be a more or less unified nation under the S. Korean government (or some version of it)
Do you mean if we had been successful in taking North Korea?
yeah, pretty much. though, tbh the Korean war is a little too modern for my personal desires of study (the most recent conflict that I enjoy studying is WW1), so finer details are hazy to me on this one.
Ouze wrote: What countries specifically has the United States invaded for the stated goal of spreading "freedom", as per the OP? I'm unaware of any within my lifetime.
Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.
Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.
Freedom has been used in some underlying reasons. Its usually some butthole dictator, or a government that complete oppresses(aka murders, maims, and steals) their people.
Maybe I'm just an mean american, but whats the problem with liberating the crap out of people for fun? I think we're just doing it wrong, we do all this "hearts and minds" crap once we are done delivering tons and tons of freedom. A house fly flies around you a few times, landing on you. What do you do? Swat at it right? Well we just happened to swat with precision munitions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 15:12:14
"You are judged in life, not by the evil you destroy, but by the light you bring to the darkness" - Reclusiarch Grimaldus of the Black Templars
Today, on the 10th anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the debate about whether it was worth it to topple the regime and the direction of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is influenced by a pessimistic view that the United States has lost Iraq. Not true. Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we’re better off today than under Hussein’s brutal dictatorship.
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein’s rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people. Our government emerges from this experience determined to ensure that these sacrifices contribute to a future of freedom and prosperity for our country.
Our relationship with the United States did not end when U.S. troops departed. In December 2011, I stood with President Obama while he spoke of “a normal relationship” between the United States and “a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq.”
Iraq is building an inclusive political system, with free multiparty elections, a multiethnic government and an independent judiciary. Our gross domestic product is expected to grow by an average of at least 9.4 percent annually through 2016. Last year, we surpassed Iran to become OPEC’s second largest producer of crude oil.
Iraq is not a protectorate of the United States; it is a sovereign partner. Partners do not always agree, but they consider and respect each other’s views. In that spirit, we ask the United States to consider Iraq’s views on challenging issues, especially those of regional importance.
Iraq is developing an independent foreign policy. With no intention of repeating Hussein’s wars, we are committed to good relations with all our neighbors. We offer the hand of friendship to Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Sharing a 376-mile border with Syria and a 906-mile border with Iran, we have a vital interest in stable, non-hostile relations with these countries, too.
In Syria, we can conceive of no scenario in which a military “victory” by either the government or the opposition can bring peace and stability. Only a negotiated solution can lead to such an outcome. Accordingly, we oppose all transfers of weapons, to both the government and the opposition, and we are working to ensure that our airspace and territory are not used for such transfers.
Further militarization of the conflict will only increase the suffering of civilians and strengthen radical groups, including our common enemy, al-Qaeda. We have been mystified by what appears to be the widespread belief in the United States that any outcome in Syria that removes President Bashar al-Assad from power will be better than the status quo. A Syria controlled in whole or part by al-Qaeda and its affiliates — an outcome that grows more likely by the day — would be more dangerous to both our countries than anything we’ve seen up to now. Americans should remember that an unintended consequence of arming insurgents in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets was turning the country over to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Iraq’s longest border is with Iran, and we don’t want a reprise of the war which left hundreds of thousands dead on both sides in the 1980s. We would like to see a Middle East without weapons of mass destruction, where governments are committed to development and cooperation rather than conflict and competition to obtain nuclear weapons. But as with Syria, we seek a peaceful resolution of this issue.
The peoples of Iraq and Iran share historic, cultural and religious ties. While we want our relationship with Iran to be stable, it will never be subservient. Iraq follows an independent foreign policy based on its distinct interests. This has been proved by our decision to sign the strategic framework agreement with the United States and our commitment to maintain a strong partnership with the United States on political, security and economic levels.
Our cooperation with the United States continues to bear fruit, and we hope to accelerate and energize it even more. While our journey from despotism to democracy has not been easy, the Arab Spring has shown that all countries going through such transitions face turmoil. The protests in several cities in Iraq reflect the fact that, while some sectarian elements call for violence, the majority of Iraqis want to express their demands through democratic means. With provincial elections this month and general elections next year, Iraqis can resolve their disagreements with ballots, not bullets.
With the world’s fifth-largest proven crude oil reserves and the region’s fastest-growing economy, Iraq is an important energy supplier and trading partner for the United States. With our needs for infrastructure to restore our electrical power and water supply, Iraq offers investment opportunities for U.S. companies.
The United States has not “lost” Iraq. Instead, in Iraq, the United States has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and democracy.
Firehead158 wrote: Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.
Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.
In both examples, you immediately had to point out that although "Freedom" was in the name, it wasn't necessarily for freedom. Which is accurate, since we all know that freeing the people in either one of the countries was not the primary goal of either one of those wars.
We invaded Afghanistan because they refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden (yes, I know they offered deals, but that was our stated reason). If they had handed over OBL then they'd still be merrily beheading schoolgirls to their hearts content to this very day. They did not, so the President got a an AUMF (which does not contain the word "freedom" even once) to find and destroy those responsible. The fact we installed a government was secondary - to claim that we invaded Afghanistan for freedom is like claiming you ate a piece of pie just because you wanted to wash the dirty fork afterward, and not because you wanted some pie.
Iraq is a more complicated, but very similar situation.
There is no shortage of oppressive governments out there that we could easily subjugate with a minimum of protest from the global community. In fact, our current foreign policy has ranged from minimal assistance even to utterly hostile regimes (Libya) to completely, flat out ignoring the pleas for assistance (Egypt, Syria).
There is no rational explanation for the meme that the United States is interested in spreading freedom, it's simply not true in either fact or ideal,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 16:22:53
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Some Belgians believe that the term "French" was introduced when American soldiers arrived in Belgium during World War I, and consequently tasted Belgian fries. They supposedly called them "French," as it was the official language of the Belgian Army at that time
So, TLDR; french fries are French in the same way that Native Americans are Indians.
Firehead158 wrote: Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.
Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.
In both examples, you immediately had to point out that although "Freedom" was in the name, it wasn't necessarily for freedom. Which is accurate, since we all know that freeing the people in either one of the countries was not the primary goal of either one of those wars.
We invaded Afghanistan because they refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden (yes, I know they offered deals, but that was our stated reason). If they had handed over OBL then they'd still be merrily beheading schoolgirls to their hearts content to this very day. They did not, so the President got a an AUMF (which does not contain the word "freedom" even once) to find and destroy those responsible. The fact we installed a government was secondary - to claim that we invaded Afghanistan for freedom is like claiming you ate a piece of pie just because you wanted to wash the dirty fork afterward, and not because you wanted some pie.
Iraq is a more complicated, but very similar situation.
There is no shortage of oppressive governments out there that we could easily subjugate with a minimum of protest from the global community. In fact, our current foreign policy has ranged from minimal assistance even to utterly hostile regimes (Libya) to completely, flat out ignoring the pleas for assistance (Egypt, Syria).
There is no rational explanation for the meme that the United States is interested in spreading freedom, it's simply not true in either fact or ideal,
Yes, it was a little bit of sarcasm on my part. Dunno if that made it through or not. I'm still pro-kicking the crap out of people...I just wish we wouldn't try to install new governments. That isn't what the military is for. Let all the hippies/idiots/morons that think going into a combat zone unarmed is a good idea do it. I completely agree, there are many other country's governments that need a good stomping. I don't want this to turn into a "current administration" bashing thread, or an Obama bashing thread(though I didn't vote for him) but I think it has a lot to due with that. Also the fact that the "Muslim Brotherhood" is partially behind/partaking in Egypt and Syria's little civil wars/disturbances. Don't want to stir up the hornets nest. I believe also a good amount of our Middle Eastern allies said leave it alone.
"You are judged in life, not by the evil you destroy, but by the light you bring to the darkness" - Reclusiarch Grimaldus of the Black Templars
Does anyone else find it amusing that the only two nations I can think of that have historically invaded people for freedom are the French and the Soviet Union?
" -KingCracker
~4100
~1660
