...their constitution is defended by deploying soldiers in foreign conflicts?
I understand that some people enlist in the army in order to help people across the globe, grow as a person or to earn a living back home. What I don't understand is people that claim that they served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Wherever in order to defend the freedoms of ordinary US citizens. As far as I'm aware (Enlighten me?) the US hasn't been under threat from an organised external force in decades (The 'war on terror' is hardly a unified external force that must be fought in order to prevent them from taking away your freedoms) and as such it seems a bit strange to think that there are boogiemen in the world that will take over your nation and re-write your constitution or something.
The only ones capable of affecting personal freedoms in the US are the lawmakers, which are very domestic. So why the 'need' for foreign conflicts to defend said rights? Nazism and Communism are long gone, and terrorists are individuals (and in rare cases small groups of people) which aren't capable to influencing personal freedoms in the US.
I just don't understand...
I understand that some people enlist in the army in order to help people across the globe, grow as a person or to earn a living back home. What I don't understand is people that claim that they served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Wherever in order to defend the freedoms of ordinary US citizens. As far as I'm aware (Enlighten me?) the US hasn't been under threat from an organised external force in decades (The 'war on terror' is hardly a unified external force that must be fought in order to prevent them from taking away your freedoms) and as such it seems a bit strange to think that there are boogiemen in the world that will take over your nation and re-write your constitution or something.
The only ones capable of affecting personal freedoms in the US are the lawmakers, which are very domestic. So why the 'need' for foreign conflicts to defend said rights? Nazism and Communism are long gone, and terrorists are individuals (and in rare cases small groups of people) which aren't capable to influencing personal freedoms in the US.
I just don't understand...