My main point was that modern militaries are diverse and people join for a lot of different reasons. Your posts read like every solider in every conflict is just a mindless killing machine who thinks they are spreading liberty.
Conscription is different than slavery in the sense that the government doesn't own you. It is more akin to taxation by labour. I suppose governments that rely on it could improve conditions and pay for soldiers. It was taxation without representation that was considered exploitation by the American colonists. States, where taxes aren't spent on public welfare and the public good, are generally shitholes (low education, low life expectancy, high crime rate, poor infrastructure, etc).
The US is not a totalitarian state. They aren't 100% free and may even be creeping closer to totalitarianism. However, clearly you haven't researched actual totalitarian countries like North Korea, or even somewhat totalitarian countries like China and Russia. America doesn't come close.
The government does fund the military by taxation, but I don't subscribe to the belief that taxes are oppression. Most people don't actually. In fact, if you earn below 10,000 $ a year, the government doesn't really tax you anyway. It's when you start earning a lot that this becomes a problem. Generally, the more you earn the more you are either relying on social stability or exploitation.
All soldiers do not deserve respect simply for having served. However, most of them do. When America invades a country, usually the objective is to topple some corrupt government. This doesn't make the soldiers working for that government bad as long as they are not committing war crimes. There have been countless examples (movies made, interviews, etc) where respect for the enemy is discussed.
Taxation is the government claiming a superior right to whatever portion of your earnings they demand. It is extortion. But conscription? Aside from chattel slavery, what is a more direct claim of ownership over another's life? "You will fight, kill, and die for us, or else, because we said so." How is that right? Governments xlaim to represent the people, but if they can't find volunteer soldiers, much less volunteer funding, how can they claim to fight in the public interest?