How does the USA continue to fight for my freedom?

They do not.

These are not my opinions or arguments or beliefs, but I do know how the line of reasoning works.

The US, as a superpower, defends our freedom by keeping the world as peaceful as possible. It also does so by addressing violence that would disrupt our way of life, so is vigilant against terrorism.

In the 50s and 60s it was fighting the spread of communism, which was a threat to our way of life.

The ‘91 Gulf War was about controlling Iraq’s attempt to disrupt the world economy which would have dire repercussions on the US economy.

If they really cared about our freedom they would be bombing the NSA.

“I’m not anti-U.S. military by any stretch”

If you think they are “serving the regime to control” and and overarching stating of what they do is “propaganda”, that would indicate otherwise.

Put another way, how long would the US survive without a military? How many people would die in the US, within it’s borders, without the threat of repercussions? Right now, if a thousand people died due to a foreign military, that would be the biggest piece of news for the next 5 years. That’s how safe we are.

Without a military, we would all be at risk every day.

I’m not a fan of some things the government and by extensions the military have done, but if you don’t think they are vital for many of the things you take for granted, you should look at the world news for comparison. We live in a bubble created by being the largest economy and military in the world.

Don’t let the first world problems blind you to the fact that literally millions of people ensure you don’t have to worry about your home being attacked by anything more threatening than someone who wants your money or to convert you to their god with pamphlets instead of guns.

> if a thousand people died due to a foreign military, that would be the biggest piece of news for the next 5 years

And seriously influence policy with a knee-jerk reaction, such as when 3000 people in those terrorist attacks thirteen years ago.

During the Cold War, the U.S. military was used as a projection of power in the face of nuclear detente. After that, it was largely no longer necessary, but the neo-cons found they could profit from it in business and politics.

The U.S. has a militia. It was never intended to have a standing army. That’s what the Second Amendment is really about – not personal possession of firearms as a basic “right,” but having a populace able to defend the state. This is built into the U.S. Constitution: a standing professional army needs to be re-approved every few years, which is done unquestionably in this political environment. The U.S. was intended to have a standing navy, which does not have to be re-approved, and to this day that’s the only militarily necessary line of defence for the continent itself. Unless you think Mexico or Canada is mounting an invasion, which I guess some neocons are dumb enough to believe.

@zenvelo I could buy that argument… I do appreciate the western style of life to most degrees. Can it get better? Yes. Will it be better for 3rd world countries that will be manufacturing most brands dreams? Probably not, but yes I guess some can argue our way of life brings opportunity to countries with lesser technologies and industries.

Thanks for all answers so far! Keep them coming.

It’s cynical sunday:
The U.S. by backing the Trans Pacific Partnership and NAFTA and CAFTA and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership supports your freedom to starve to death and give all your time and effort to a multi-national corporation.
Historically the U.S. military supports your freedom to enjoy oil and other products from around the world while exploiting the people in the places from which they came so they can starve to death.

The last time the USA fought a war for freedom was 70 years ago.

Freedom can be a tricky word to define. If by freedom we mean maximum money for Americans to buy things then supporting the ability of oil companies to operate would constitute freedom. It is, however, necessary to see that of late most of that extra revenue is going to a small percentage of the population. As @dabbler points out, greater freedom for Americans may come at the cost of less freedom for others.

Sometimes freedom can be taken as synonymous with security. The two may reinforce each other, but sometimes security can come at the cost of freedom. In pursuing terrorists, some may say that the ability to move about without fear increases freedom. Others might say that increased surveillance leads to restrictions on freedom.

Sorry for not being able to give a definitive answer. I don’t think it is possible to give a pat answer.