Reply #29: And will they show...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

the way World War I set up the conditions for World War II in Europe? The lies that were used to justify the Vietnam War? The thousands of innocent people who were tortured and massacred in Central America by military forces being "advised" by the U.S.? The invasion of Grenada launched for no reason other than to teach uppity islands a lesson, and then totally bungled?

I don't think so.

Call me anti-military if you will, but I'm pretty knowledgeable about world history, and I can't think of a single military operation that the U.S. has been involved in since World War II (with the possible exception of the Korean War, and even that's not 100% non-controversial) that actually involved "defending freedom."

Eisenhower sending troops to to Lebanon? Nope. The Vietnam War? Nope. The "police action" in the Dominican Republic in 1965? Nope. The military advisors sent to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to teach repressive governments how to repress more efficiently and to make the region safe for sweatshops? Nope. The invasion of Grenada? Nope. The invasion of Panama to depose a former CIA asset? Nope. The action in Somalia, ostensibly to protect the NGOs working on famine relief? What was that really about anyway? Bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan? Huh? The wars in the former Yugoslavia? Maybe, but the European members of NATO took primary responsibility for that, as they should have.

The whole notion that our over-grown military force (large than the next several combined) exists to "protect freedom" is a nice fairy tale to tell gullible 18-year-olds as they sign up for the chance to be blown to bits and kill people who never did them any harm, but the historical record doesn't bear it out.