We haven’t fought a war for freedom since the 1770’s. Freedom is just a buzzword that doesn’t mean anything to many Americans that use it. From what i’ve seen, most Americans are very quick to restrict personal freedoms.
Patriotism (in America) should be support of the ideas that this country is based on (liberty and democracy), but it’s disappointing that most people seem to define it as killing and/or hating other countries’ peoples, using freedom as an excuse.
Especially since it is basically the freedom to die in a car accident.
You sure about that?
War of 1812? To keep Britian from taking back their colonies?
Civil War? to ensure that former slaves could be free?
World War II? To drive away the invading Japanese who had been colonizing their conquests as they invaded along the Pacific Rim?
I’ll bet some history buffs can come up with more.
Hi Bricker
Well, Title II substantially limits the freedom of citizens (and others) to engage in private communications. Title III limits the rights of citizens (and others) to keep their banking affairs private. Title IV contains provisions for mandatory detention on suspicion of certain behaviour, and limits recourse to judicial review of such decisions.
Whether these measures are warranted or not is not the point. The point is that they are much more significant infringements on the rights of citizens and others than the requiremen to wear a seatbelt. Which would upset you more; to have to wear a seatbelt while in your car, or to spend six months in custody without being charged with any offence?
I admit ignorance on the details of this war. Did Britian really have a chance at retaking the colonies?
I thought about this one, but in the terms that the South was fighting for freedom … the right to secede from the Union. But i saw it as a fight for States’ freedoms, rather than individual freedoms. Slavery was a catalyst for the war, but it isn’t what the war was about.
I don’t see how American freedom and liberty was ever in danger. The Japanese didn’t have the power to occupy any region of the U.S. (although i could be wrong about Hawaii, in the long term [if the US didn’t fight]). The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to cripple our Navy, to diminish our capacity to fight in the Pacific theater.
Don’t forget the Coldwar. Communism and all that stuff.
Ask Japanese-Americans about that one! They have a different take than even I do. Google “Manzanar.”
And it’s not about whether they had A CHANCE at winning, it’s about that they tried. They BELIEVED they had a chance.
We were fighting for freedom. Consider yourself enlightened (a little bit), but be skeptical, do your own research, and learn.
I think he meant fighting a war to defend America’s freedom, in which case he’s probably right. Britain wasn’t going to retake the colonies in 1812, the South wasn’t going to overrun the North, Japan and Germany weren’t going to conquer America.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but what were the intentions of the adversaries mentioned? Were we fighting for freedom? If not, what were we fighting for?
My post isn’t about freedom, but it is about some basic human needs that continue to be overlooked. While we are trying to supply the much needed running water in Iraq, could we not also arrange it for most of the Navajo people?
I’m with you 100% ZOE - our leaders are corrupt, and we vote between one corrupt leader and another. Honest, principled leaders are not allowed to run for office, and even if they did get elected, I think there is an overarching conspiricy that would limit their effectiveness, or… a sniper.
But that’s another thread… 
I didn’t say any of the above.
SnakeSpirit
**Snakespirit[b/]
The war of 1812 was an instance of U.S. agression, in which it tried to conquer Canada. Not a case of the U.S. defending its freedom.
Japan had no intentions on attacking America proper. They did however consider that a war over ownership of the Pacific might be inevitable.
That’s why they were prompted to attack the U.S. fleet, when confronted with the oil embargo.
Germany had no intentions of a war with the U.S.
It did declare war because its ally was at war with the U.S.
In WWII? Because our allies were being attacked and because Japan had bombed Hawaii (and it could be argued was threatening our interests). Civil War? I probably shouldn’t go there, but I’ll go with preserving the union. There was certainly not a threat that the Confederacy was going to take over the whole country, they weren’t interested in doing so.
Is that in the Constitution? I should really re-read that thing.
You know, I can only think of one politician here who was killed by a snipe (and a few were shot by people who ran up to them and shot them). If you want to argue those were the most honest and principled leaders we ever had, good luck to you.
No kidding.
Good responses everyone. I don’t have too much to add other than that what I had to say about the law regarding seat belts was an example of laws created that restricted a freedom. I would have thought of a better example, but I couldn’t think of any. Still can’t for that matter, so perhaps I wasn’t the best person to pose the question. I’m tempted to bring up weed as an example, but I suppose the general outlook on it is that is that it doesn’t just kill a person, it ruins their lives, breaks families aparts, drive people into homicidal rages, etc, etc. I’ve never smoked the stuff so I wouldn’t know of the effects really, but I’m convinced having known a few people that smoked it every now and then that it isn’t as bad as it’s usually made out to be. It might not be healthy, but I don’t think it would be the downfall of this country if it was legalized. But then, the general outlook currently says otherwise.
That’s definitely not the general outlook, especially on this board.
Well I know it’s certanely not on this board, I remember reading the 5-6 page debate we had about it a month or two back on this board. Great thread, many good points were made.
Has there been a national poll of any kind taken recently on whether or not most Americans think it should be legalized?
Not that I know of, but I’d be curious to see it. Even if they don’t think it should be legal, that doesn’t mean they have quite such a hysterical view of the dangers.
Hawaii was a U.S. Territory at the time. Japanese were parachuting onto the Hawaiian islands. What, you think they just wanted some macadamia nuts? The freedom of U.S. citizens was being threatened.
Boy, you sure got me on that one. I guess I bought the high-school explanation that it was to “free the slaves” hook line and sinker. I thought that was freedom; thanks for enlightening me.
Are you getting snarkey for personal reasons? I thought that was all behind us.
You seemingly took that comment too seriously. I thought that the ‘wink’ at the end of that paragraph would make it clear I was kidding.
You ARE being snarkey. Do you really want to dredge up old resentments again? Do you want to get personal instead of debating an issue? Does it still bother you that much?
I don’t have any hard feelings; left it way in the past. How you act is your choice.
I was under the impression that U.S. hostility stemmed primarily from Britain’s practice of impressment. So in that way, yes, the U.S. was fighting for a freedom, though Britain was not in it to reclaim their colonies. In any case, the Treaty of Ghent did nothing more than merely restore the status quo before the War of 1812 (in other words, the peace treaty didn’t even end impressment). It was a pretty stupid war, all things considered, and is not relevant to the discussion at hand. So let that be the end of it.
Hmm… my impression is as follows…
Confederates were fighting in part for the freedom to have slaves.
The Union was fighting - eventually - for the freedom of slaves.
Freeing the slaves was something of an afterthough; the war was more about politics - whether a state could secede, rights to slavery, etc - and economy - how the agrarian South could thrive without forced labor - more than anything else. IIRC, a number of soldiers and officers were even against freeing the slaves.
Then again, I’m basing this off the little I’ve read… and of course that PBS special… 