“I fought for you!”

Video: “I fought for you” (is that even real?)

Below is an “emotional” video about the divide between old-time “soldiers” who served in the military, and the kids that might not understand what it all means.

What is this?

I watched this video back during the holidays, and wondered about it for a while. And it is truly bothersome.

While I like the fact that they “unplugged” kids from their mindless entertainment, they only transferred their attention to something equally disturbing: war.

Sure – those surviving Veterans deserve compassion for actually enduring such an atrocity – there is something missing.

To tell children that “You fought for them” seems very disingenuous. America did NOT have foreign invaders. No one was threatening our way of life (or the livelihood of those children or their parents). To say “I fought for YOU!” seems terribly false, doesn’t it?

Those guys “fought” for people that told them who to fight. There was no inherent threat to anyone in the United States of America. We were FINE!

Again, this wasn’t meant as “disrespect” to anyone – just offering a different viewpoint on what “fought” might mean.

You know we’re running into issues when you can’t offer constructive criticism or ask perfectly reasonable questions without the risk of offending people. In fact, you might get violently attacked for having anything resembling a “dissenting” opinion. Look no further than the climate change maniacs for great examples.

i fought for you video

Leave a Reply

1 Comment on "“I fought for you!”"

xxrjxx
Member
xxrjxx
Your premise, that saying “I fought for you” is disingenous is incorrect on many levels, setting aside an apparent predisposition to not listening to counterpoint because of a potential ‘violent attack’. On this latter point, your last paragraph seems to indicate this. Going back to the more important aspect. By means of background, my family has served (father, and two brothers, 1 of whom is active military formerly as a fighter pilot and currently as a doctor), so yes, I’m a bit sensitive to the topic. Why is your premise incorrect? Fundamentally it seems you believe that simply because a war isn’t fought on your home soil, that it calls into question the basis for ‘why’ the war was fought. You can only believe this if you believe there is no ‘absolute’ good or evil, only relative shades of gray. For example, the WWII veterans in the video–would you say that Hitler was ‘evil’ and needed to be defeated, regardless of where he was? Or would you have waited until he struck against the US and we were fighting on home turf? Do you believe that he was truly not threatening our way of life? I suggest that if this is your belief, again, you need to revisit some history books. Certainly Japan had attacked US soil, so there isn’t a question about Hirohito’s expansionist intent in the Pacific, and answers your question about the inherent threat to the US. From there you get into your shades of gray, with… Read more »
wpDiscuz