Do armies protect freedom?

[Radical Activist]

Growing up in America we're all taught as children that we owe our freedoms to the military and the many wars they fight on our behalf. If having an army guaranteed freedom then Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia would have been two of the most free places on earth. Have armies been used more often to protect or suppress freedom?

[Redstone]

1. They used to. Back when they were used to fight people who actually

were able to cause us harm.

Back before they were used to invade countries who posed NO threat to us.

Redstone

[Radical Activist]

3. Like in the 1840's?

When a President lied to the nation in order to start a war of aggression against Mexico, a weak nation that posed no threat to us? Back then?

[Redstone]

4. Yup. And in 1898 yet again.

Redstone

[Monkeyman]

12. From a Combat vet

I felt I was protecting you and freedom. But that all change after being in country in Vietnam. That why when I came home I join John Kerry in Washington protesting the War.But in World War Two ya they did pritect America from a German Bush

[Selatius]

2. Suppress

If it weren't for a few chickenhawks in Austria-Hungary who wanted to test their new toys on a fledgling Serbia after finding the perfect excuse, it can be argued that Nazi Germany and perhaps the Soviet Union never would be born. They were born in the chaos and instability wrought by WWI.

[kiahzero]

5. Necessary != Sufficient

So, if having an army is necessary to protecting freedoms, that does not imply that having an army is sufficient to protect freedoms. Therefore your argument "If armies protected freedom, then Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia would have been two of the most free places on Earth" is fatally flawed, and seems to ultimately have been added just to influence the poll numbers.

I didn't vote, because I don't vote in push polls.

[Radical Activist]

7. And yet,

we can list many free nations that don't have armies, thus proving the flaw in your claim that they are necessary for that purpose.

[kiahzero]

10. I didn't claim that

And I'd agree that it's not a fundamental necessity for a nation to have an army for it to protect its freedom. However, off-hand, I would argue that one of three other conditions must be satisfied in order for a nation to remain free without an army:
* It must be under the protection of another nation who is capable of defending it.
* It must have a record of neutrality that prevents it from being a target of any hostile nation.
* There must not exist any hostile nations which an army would be necessary to defend against.

If any of these three criteria are met, I would agree that an army is not necessary to defend the freedom of a nation. However, the case of the U.S. satisfies none of them, and so I would argue it is necessary for us to have an army.

Before anyone assumes, none of this should be construed to imply that I'm arguing that our current deployment in Iraq is protecting our freedom.

[Radical Activist]

11. I would suggest adding three items to the list.

Other things that could make an army unnecessary:
*Geographic Isolation: the principle reason the US didn't have a large standing army for most of its history.
* Lack of natural resources desired by other nations
* A population trained and capable of guerrilla warfare and/or non-cooperation tactics. That might allow a nation to be invaded, but it will prevent any sustained occupation by a foreign power.

[kiahzero]

14. Hmm

I don't think geographic isolation is as much a factor as it once was, as it's much easier to project force than it was in the early days of the United States. I also don't think that a lack of natural resources would be enough to deter a hostile nation from starting a war, if the war were driven over something other than economics (of course, if you believe that all wars are driven by economics, then you'd be more prone to see this as an effective deterrent). Additionally, I think that guerrila warfare would only be an effective detterent iff the nation has a history of repelling invasions and therefore has a reputation for being unconquerable.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I'll ask my favorite question again: If the US military is to 'protect our

freedoms', when are they invading Washington DC and hauling off all the traitors there?

[Exultant Democracy]

8. "Armies are more often used to suppress freedom" is my real vote

but I couldn't help clicking on "Why do you hate America?" Cause that was so funny.

[Radical Activist]

9. heh

Thanks for clarifying the vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Sure they are. Just ask the bosses who control them.

Hitler and Goebbels assured the German people that the Wehrmacht was busily defending them from the threat of Bolshevism and the Jews taking away their freedom.

The Japanese Army was spreading Freedom and Prosperity to the peoples of Asia.

The British Army was protecting "loyal British Subjects" during the Revolution.

The Confederate Army was protecting the freedom of the Southern States.

The American Army was protecting us from the Communists in SE Asia.

and on, and on, and on.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Radical Activist]

15. Nice quote n/t