Posted November 11, 2019
Soldiers "protect their country" when they actually defend it, not when they're out killing so certain people can get power and wealth.
What would an Iraqui say about an invadimg US soldier? And a Vietnamese? Or the Afghans, that got massacred first by the Talibans the US brought there and armed to expel the Soviets, then by the same Americans who wanted to remove their former allies turned hostile. And I have SO many other examples.
Military are not there to protect you. You can lie to yourself as much as you want, but any soldier not fighting on his own native territory is protecting no one, just corporate interests.
So... thank you Kurds, Iraqui, Afghans (the actual ones, not Talibans)?
It's only natural this kind of stuff gets criticized by anyone with just a little bit of contemporary history knowledge.
What would an Iraqui say about an invadimg US soldier? And a Vietnamese? Or the Afghans, that got massacred first by the Talibans the US brought there and armed to expel the Soviets, then by the same Americans who wanted to remove their former allies turned hostile. And I have SO many other examples.
Military are not there to protect you. You can lie to yourself as much as you want, but any soldier not fighting on his own native territory is protecting no one, just corporate interests.
So... thank you Kurds, Iraqui, Afghans (the actual ones, not Talibans)?
It's only natural this kind of stuff gets criticized by anyone with just a little bit of contemporary history knowledge.