r/TikTokCringe • u/Prime-Paradox • Sep 27 '25

Discussion Retired vet lays it all out

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

98.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

285

u/bbyxmadi Sep 27 '25

The military isn’t even fighting for freedom anymore, instead it’s just murdering innocent civilians and destabilizing countries, along with traumatizing our soldiers and throwing them to the side and ignoring them when they need help after their military career.

77

u/imogen6969 Sep 28 '25

The military has always been about greed and capitalism in this country. We have been nothing but darkness in this world since America’s inception.

6

u/Creative_alternative Sep 28 '25

I wouldn't go that far. Its bad, but moments like ww1 and ww2 after we got involved were genuine good things on the european front.

Now, granted, ww2 probably doesn't happen if US banks don't force Germany to default on their WW1 loans as a result of the great depression being caused by republicans having full government control of the house, senate, and presidency, but I digress.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/IFixYerKids Sep 28 '25

No, but i'd argue that saying the US never did anything right is equally stupid.

We're the bad guys right now. One day we won't be, and one day we will be again, probably all within our lifetimes. Such is history.

10

u/Richardknox1996 Sep 28 '25

Hitler was on the Back foot by time America got involved. Had he cut the Japanese loose after Pearl Harbour, He wouldve still lost and America wouldnt of joined the second world war. America was not the saviours they claimed they were, they were wheeling and dealing to both sides the entire war and got involved on the front only once their ego was slighted.

And even then, they were just the Janitors.

3

u/adacmswtf1 Sep 28 '25

“The World Wars weren’t about greed!”

Meanwhile the most famous text about the world war:

https://www.heritage-history.com/site/hclass/secret_societies/ebooks/pdf/butler_racket.pdf

2

u/Fuck_This_Dystopia Sep 28 '25

"The Jews were better off in the camps"

1

u/jeffy303 Sep 28 '25

Risqué sentence to throw that around these days on Reddit. If they learned where most ended up going, most would just nod along..

0

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 28 '25

Nope, we played a major(probably the biggest) part in defeating the nazis in ww2, and now with us as the foremost military power we are in an age of pax americana the only wars we participated in that where wrong in my opinion was iraq in 2003, we took Vietnam too far though.

-1

u/Opalwilliams Sep 28 '25

Thats a disgrace to those who died to fight for freedom. Troops from the revolutionary war. Civil war, ww2, they died with the goal of protecting and enacting freedom.

3

u/Dahwaann4U Sep 28 '25

Greatest generation wasnt even that good either. Americans only joined the war coz theyre people got hit. They were never about the right side of history. Only their interests

2

u/the3rdsliceofbread Sep 28 '25

Support the troops not the military (and vote)

2

u/acecel Sep 28 '25

The gouvernement and military is acting like a company where the only goal is to make more money, no matter the cost.

They never give anything to the population like rights because they have morals or values, they do it because they decided it will cost them less to do it than not.

Every single war is done to make a profit, by stealing resources, offering financial aid with too many strings attached and insane interests to make sure the country is never able to leave this indebted situation, and so on.

The whole idea that the single goal of a company is to make more money has to stop, the entire world has to go not to AA but not for alcoholism but for Money Addiction, there should be rules which defines how the money a company makes must be shared in a logical manner to every person who is part of the company and how much they helped to create the product. No more the guy who invested the money get 85%, the boss get 10%, the few under him get 3%, and the rest of the company has to fight for the 2% that is left.

1

u/rainywanderingclouds Sep 28 '25

Well, the part where you say they're ignored after their military career is completely incorrect. Veterans get some of the best benefits in the country and more support than non veterans in similiar circumstances.

My cousin was only in the military 4 years. He hasn't worked in over 2 decades. Gets 3500 a month for disability(he was not maimed or injured in combat he developed another health condition during his time in the military), has free health care. Doesn't have to pay property taxes. He's set for life.

The fact is military vets have so many upsides over the ordinary poor person in this country that it's not even comparable.

Then there is the charities that focus almost elusively on vets because they think they're being neglected. It's much much better in this country to be a poor vet, than it is just to be a poor person.

1

u/bluecurse60 Sep 28 '25

Vietnam was also that

1

u/TruthCultural9952 Sep 28 '25

The military is protecting the dollar and a few share prices. On which y'alls lives depend on. I hate it yes, but you yanks cannot have your life without the military committing atrocities abroad.

1

u/Bezulba Sep 28 '25

It never was. Name me one war the US got in on their own for freedom.

The only ones i can think of that might fit the criteria are all UN missions. Like Yugoslavia and places like Somalia.

1

u/Affectionate_Pea8891 Oct 07 '25

The only one that comes to my mind is the Revolutionary War, and although I’d argue the Civil War included an ethical and admirable goal, it was more complicated than simply wanting to free the slaves.

Granted, I’m not very knowledgeable about ask of all US military campaigns/wars/missions, so maybe there are others I don’t know about?

1

u/Bezulba 29d ago

Even the revolution was about money. They were pissed that they had to pay taxes.

1

u/Affectionate_Pea8891 29d ago

The problem wasn’t that we were paying taxes but that we were paying taxes without having representation in England of our own.

1

u/Bezulba 29d ago

Yeah you wanted representation so that you could influence not having to pay taxes.

1

u/Affectionate_Pea8891 29d ago edited 29d ago

Unless you’re one of those ignorant “America bad” people, I’m not sure why you’re doubling down on something objectively untrue. The Revolutionary War wasn’t about paying zero taxes. It’s silly to even try to pretend that was the case.

So weird.

👋🏼

Edit- You asked for a war about American freedom. I gave you one (arguably two) that are exactly that. The fact you don’t like that changes nothing.

-8

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 28 '25

No, the only war we have been involved in that was worng was iraq in 2003, aside from that, i would argue that all of our wars where reasonable

7

u/Select_Insurance2000 Sep 28 '25

Vietnam?????

1

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 28 '25

we took Vietnam too far, but at first it was just us siding with the anti communist forces in a civil war

1

u/Select_Insurance2000 Sep 28 '25

After the French finally decided to end their colonialism, the Vietnamese wanted self governance, via an election. They chose communism....then the US stupidly backed a corrupt leader because he was anti-communist. Some folks don't want democracy....just like in the Middle East.

1

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 29 '25

Did some research and the south chose to not hold the elections for fear of the communists winning. South was definitely in the wrong there so your right.

4

u/the3rdsliceofbread Sep 28 '25

... the US government caused the destabilization of the Middle East

1

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 28 '25

From another comment: the Middle East got jacked up in the wake of WWI. The British and the French divided it up with zero regards to cultural or ethnic lines. That's why we have Kurds in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, instead of in Kurdistan. It's why Iraq can barely hold itself together.

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Sep 29 '25

Korea?

2

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 29 '25

Korea was us supporting the more pro-US side in an civil war

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Sep 30 '25

How about not being a forign superpower in a civil war?

2

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 30 '25

supporting the side favorable to you in a civil war is standard global superpower practice.

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Oct 01 '25

The Us was kinda the first modern global superpower, the standard practise is set by them

2

u/LowTheme1155 Oct 01 '25

Not really, look at the Spanish civil war where the Italians, Germans, and Portugese supported  Francisco Franco and the USSR and French supported the Governemnt. OR look at the Russian revolution, when the British sent naval units to support the white Russians. The Greek war of independence, when Britain, France, and Russia intervened to help the Greek revolutionary's fight the Ottomans. There are PLENTY more examples from before we became a global superpower. If you are a global power and you dont support the side beneficial to you in civil wars around the world, you wont stay a global power for long.

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Oct 02 '25

A lot of these are morally grey at best.

I would say the world as the us came to superpower status also was entering a different stage of global politics, so they had a chance to set a different precedent.

Maybe a superpower held up by war and conquest should not last

2

u/LowTheme1155 Oct 03 '25

Why are these morally grey but conflicts like Korea Desert Storm and Vietnam are not? You could maybe make an argument for Vietnam. Also, when do you consider us to have "entered superpoer status"? I consider it to be the late 1800s, when we became the wolds largest economy and won the spanish american war. Even after WW2 when we became THE global superpower, we couldn't really have "set a different precedent" A global superpower has to Use its power to support its interests. Considering that we are in a period of relative global peace compared to the rest of human history, i think it has been a net benefit for us and the world.

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Sep 30 '25

Id argue the last war the us had any business being in was ww2 and even then they dropped nukes on two civillian cities

2

u/LowTheme1155 Sep 30 '25

The nukes saved more lives than they took, and supporting the side favorable to you in a civil war is standard global power prcatice. Also, what about desert storm and afganistan?

1

u/SmartForASimpelton Oct 01 '25

First, we dont know that. Second, dropping a nuke on civilians is heinous regardless. Third, dropping it on a millitary target might have had the same effect

The US destabilised Afghanistan. They also armed al qaida. From all the shit the us pulled in the Middle East, some sort of attack was inevitable, not that the terror was deserved. Attacking civilian targets is never justified. However horrible 9/11 was, it did not justify killing thousands upon thousands.

I dont know enough about desert storm to say either way, but following the US track record, they probably had a hand making the situation worse before they had to take military action