What Were We Fighting For?

[TemplarKormac]

I couldn't help but remember back in 2004 during the thick of the Iraq War, how our men and women fought hard and paid for every inch of ground they took with their life's blood. Today, 10 years later, in Ramadi and Fallujah, places where the fighting was the fiercest and where the most of our troops died, the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that Obama claimed had been "decimated" and put "on the run" has retaken those places with little resistance. Their flags now fly over those cities once again. In Robert Gates' new book Duty, he recalls how Obama's decisions regarding the war were purely political. He recalls a particular disdain for the military in general which exuded from the President. This all leads me to ask, what were we fighting for? Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics? Did he care that one day that such a pullout would create a power vacuum there? Did he realize he was relinquishing all that our troops fought for back to the enemy?

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely and give up everything they fought hard and died for, simply to put himself in a better political position to trounce his rivals. Why did he have military advisers if he was simply going to ignore them as he did Mr. Gates? I fail to understand how a man can have simply no commitment to the efforts his men and women in uniform are putting in overseas. I'm a Libertarian, and I don't take too kindly to foreign intervention in the first place. But I was also taught as a boy, "If you start a fight son, you finish it."

What were we fighting for? Nothing it seems, nothing but the political gains of one man. My Father fought in the first Iraq war, and I can tell you the he is none too happy to see what he fought for, risked life and limb for--- gone; taken back by the enemy. What were we really fighting for? You tell me.

 

[Chris]

Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., so Bush Jr. went to war with Iraq.

This is what happens when you elect a stupid president.

Smart presidents use drones.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., so Bush Jr. went to war with Iraq.

This is what happens when you elect a stupid president.

Smart presidents use drones.

Sure, on children.

 

[J.E.D]

It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely

So, because he didn't want to keep US men and women in a hostile foreign country, he doesn't respect US troops? We've been in Iraq for 10 years; we spent untold amounts of money; lost good men and women; destroyed Iraqi men, women, children, their cities, their way of life. All for what? Where was the smoking gun? Obama did what the American people elected him to do - get the fuck out of there. And he followed the timeline that Bush - the asshole who got us into this mess - laid out. What more do you expect? What have YOU done?

 

[zeke]

Karmac, I have read that you like your guns and you've got lot of nerve. Get your fucking ass over to Iraq and show everybody that YOU are willing to put your life on the line for a bunch of Iraqis.

If you won't do that (which you won't) shut the fuck up about wanting to get more Americans killed for nothing.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

We were never fighting for anything. That's why Obama followed Bush's withdrawal date and got us the fuck out.

Oh, and leaving our troops over in that shit hole doesn't show them respect. Quite the opposite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraq and Afghanistan (after 2002) show the limitations and near-sightedness of neo-conservative projections of hard power. The political and military gains cannot be consolidated with commitment by the American taxpayer to social change in those countries. We will never be there for the long haul.

So: a wastage of American power, treasure, and man power, plus untold misery for the target nations.

 

[BDBoop]

We need our troops home. Enough is enough.

 

[Redfish]

Iraq and Afghanistan (after 2002) show the limitations and near-sightedness of neo-conservative projections of hard power. The political and military gains cannot be consolidated with commitment by the American taxpayer to social change in those countries. We will never be there for the long haul.

So: a wastage of American power, treasure, and man power, plus untold misery for the target nations.

We agree that Iraq and Afghanistan were stupid wastes of american lives and money. But you are being disengenuous when you claim that only republicans supported those fiascos. Both parties authorized and funded that idiocy.

Just as both parties authroized and funded the fiasco in Viet Nam that cost 58,000 american lives and billions of dollars------FOR FRICKEN NOTHING.

We, as americans, need to learn from these stupid mistakes made by leaders of both parties.

Constantly arguing about which party is worse, is pointless.

 

[Redfish]

We need our troops home. Enough is enough.

Yes, and we need to close all foreign bases unless the host country agrees to pay the entire cost of the base.

 

[Redfish]

We were never fighting for anything. That's why Obama followed Bush's withdrawal date and got us the fuck out.

Oh, and leaving our troops over in that shit hole doesn't show them respect. Quite the opposite.

I agree, however when we send our military into battle we should give them the assets and authority to win it decisively and quickly. We did not do that in any war since WW2 and we have lost every one since then.

 

[Dutch]

I couldn't help but remember back in 2004 during the thick of the Iraq War, how our men and women fought hard and paid for every inch of ground they took with their life's blood. Today, 10 years later, in Ramadi and Fallujah, places where the fighting was the fiercest and where the most of our troops died, the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that Obama claimed had been "decimated" and put "on the run" has retaken those places with little resistance. Their flags now fly over those cities once again. In Robert Gates' new book Duty, he recalls how Obama's decisions regarding the war were purely political. He recalls a particular disdain for the military in general which exuded from the President. This all leads me to ask, what were we fighting for? Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics? Did he care that one day that such a pullout would create a power vacuum there? Did he realize he was relinquishing all that our troops fought for back to the enemy?

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely and give up everything they fought hard and died for, simply to put himself in a better political position to trounce his rivals. Why did he have military advisers if he was simply going to ignore them as he did Mr. Gates? I fail to understand how a man can have simply no commitment to the efforts his men and women in uniform are putting in overseas. I'm a Libertarian, and I don't take too kindly to foreign intervention in the first place. But I was also taught as a boy, "If you start a fight son, you finish it."

What were we fighting for? Nothing it seems, nothing but the political gains of one man. My Father fought in the first Iraq war, and I can tell you the he is none too happy to see what he fought for, risked life and limb for--- gone; taken back by the enemy. What were we really fighting for? You tell me.

LINO Libertarian in name only. Come on Templar, you know tou are just a Neo-Con calling yourself a libertarian because it's the easiest way to take no responsibility for anything that happens. Real libertarians would despise the Tea Party, which you stated you are a member of. The Tea Party sold out long ago to corporate intrests and the Republican machine.

 

[Duped]

We should not of saved Kuwait without a compensation agreement, and we should have never had gulf war II ! Why kill the enemy of our enemies?

Our policy should be simple: don't go to war unless we, or our staunch allies have been attacked - then we decimate their military, and let those people deal with the aftermath - fuck the UN. When you occupy someone's land, you make enemies. Bush was full of shit, and Obama is a piece of shit!

We faught, because of Bush's swagger - he wanted to show that his dick was bigger than Sadam's.

 

[protectionist]

I couldn't help but remember back in 2004 during the thick of the Iraq War, how our men and women fought hard and paid for every inch of ground they took with their life's blood. Today, 10 years later, in Ramadi and Fallujah, places where the fighting was the fiercest and where the most of our troops died, the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that Obama claimed had been "decimated" and put "on the run" has retaken those places with little resistance. Their flags now fly over those cities once again. In Robert Gates' new book Duty, he recalls how Obama's decisions regarding the war were purely political. He recalls a particular disdain for the military in general which exuded from the President. This all leads me to ask, what were we fighting for? Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics? Did he care that one day that such a pullout would create a power vacuum there? Did he realize he was relinquishing all that our troops fought for back to the enemy?

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely and give up everything they fought hard and died for, simply to put himself in a better political position to trounce his rivals. Why did he have military advisers if he was simply going to ignore them as he did Mr. Gates? I fail to understand how a man can have simply no commitment to the efforts his men and women in uniform are putting in overseas. I'm a Libertarian, and I don't take too kindly to foreign intervention in the first place. But I was also taught as a boy, "If you start a fight son, you finish it."

What were we fighting for? Nothing it seems, nothing but the political gains of one man. My Father fought in the first Iraq war, and I can tell you the he is none too happy to see what he fought for, risked life and limb for--- gone; taken back by the enemy. What were we really fighting for? You tell me.

I DID tell what we were fighting for - in another thread >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...es-remarks-backed-up-by-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html

What we were fighting for in Iraq is essentially the same as what we still are fighting for in Afghanistan. To deny al Qaeda the opportunity to use the country for training camps, ie. bomb-making schools, the graduates of which could then bring those talents here.

There is another difference between Afghanistan and Iraq though, and both are critical to US national security, both involving nuclear weapons.

1. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. Pakistan is a country loaded with Islamic jihadists who have repeatedly attacked storage centers of these weapons. The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, making them dangerously susceptible to attack. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood.
With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

2. In Iraq, for years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, putting them in position to acquire nuclear weapons, and making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country., and doing it with authority.

I think a lot of people are foolishly going with what feels comfortable at the moment, rather than the big picture, and the critical nature of it. It could be that US troops may NEVER be able to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and may be needed in quite a few other countries as well.

People in the year 2314 may look back at us (after having had US troops all over the Middle East for 300 years) and say >> "What made them think they could pull US troops out of there ?"

Not to minimize any loss of life, but just to put war casualties in perspective for the younger generation who never has really seen it fully, the total number of deaths in the War on Terror: Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined has been 6,717, over the course of 13 years. In contrast, in one single battle > the World War II Battle of Okinawa, US deaths (Army, Navy, Marines) were 12,520, and this occured in 82 DAYS. Also, over 110,000 Japanese fighters died, about half of them committing suicide.
The Battle of the Bulge in Germany was even more costly in US military lives, and lasted half as long (41 DAYS).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

 

[Duped]

I couldn't help but remember back in 2004 during the thick of the Iraq War, how our men and women fought hard and paid for every inch of ground they took with their life's blood. Today, 10 years later, in Ramadi and Fallujah, places where the fighting was the fiercest and where the most of our troops died, the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that Obama claimed had been "decimated" and put "on the run" has retaken those places with little resistance. Their flags now fly over those cities once again. In Robert Gates' new book Duty, he recalls how Obama's decisions regarding the war were purely political. He recalls a particular disdain for the military in general which exuded from the President. This all leads me to ask, what were we fighting for? Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics? Did he care that one day that such a pullout would create a power vacuum there? Did he realize he was relinquishing all that our troops fought for back to the enemy?

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely and give up everything they fought hard and died for, simply to put himself in a better political position to trounce his rivals. Why did he have military advisers if he was simply going to ignore them as he did Mr. Gates? I fail to understand how a man can have simply no commitment to the efforts his men and women in uniform are putting in overseas. I'm a Libertarian, and I don't take too kindly to foreign intervention in the first place. But I was also taught as a boy, "If you start a fight son, you finish it."

What were we fighting for? Nothing it seems, nothing but the political gains of one man. My Father fought in the first Iraq war, and I can tell you the he is none too happy to see what he fought for, risked life and limb for--- gone; taken back by the enemy. What were we really fighting for? You tell me.

I DID tell what we were fighting for - in another thread >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...es-remarks-backed-up-by-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html

What we were fighting for in Iraq is essentially the same as what we still are fighting for in Afghanistan. To deny al Qaeda the opportunity to use the country for training camps, ie. bomb-making schools, the graduates of which could then bring those talents here.

There is another difference between Afghanistan and Iraq though, and both are critical to US national security, both involving nuclear weapons.

1. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. Pakistan is a country loaded with Islamic jihadists who have repeatedly attacked storage centers of these weapons. The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, making them dangerously susceptible to attack. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood.
With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

2. In Iraq, for years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, putting them in position to acquire nuclear weapons, and making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country., and doing it with authority.

I think a lot of people are foolishly going with what feels comfortable at the moment, rather than the big picture, and the critical nature of it. It could be that US troops may NEVER be able to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and may be needed in quite a few other countries as well.

People in the year 2314 may look back at us (after having had US troops all over the Middle East for 300 years) and say >> "What made them think they could pull US troops out of there ?"

Not to minimize any loss of life, but just to put war casualties in perspective for the younger generation who never has really seen it fully, the total number of deaths in the War on Terror: Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined has been 6,717, over the course of 13 years. In contrast, in one single battle > the World War II Battle of Okinawa, US deaths (Army, Navy, Marines) were 12,520, and this occured in 82 DAYS. Also, over 110,000 Japanese fighters died, about half of them committing suicide.

Foolish! When you occupy a land you make enemies. Pakistan is not our friend. You need to hold a country liable for what' s going on there. You can not police the world.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely

So, because he didn't want to keep US men and women in a hostile foreign country, he doesn't respect US troops? We've been in Iraq for 10 years; we spent untold amounts of money; lost good men and women; destroyed Iraqi men, women, children, their cities, their way of life. All for what? Where was the smoking gun? Obama did what the American people elected him to do - get the fuck out of there. And he followed the timeline that Bush - the asshole who got us into this mess - laid out. What more do you expect? What have YOU done?

How would you feel if in a game you were taken out while your opponent made up the advantage and beat you anyway? How would you feel if you built a house, only to be made to destroy it after not setting one foot in it? I have a unique perspective on this issue that you do not. I live in a military family, and I understand their sacrifice far better than you liberal blowhards ever will.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We weren't fighting at all. The U.S. government was fighting in Iraq to get power for themselves, and to enrich their cronies in the war industry. Also, there are still American troops in Iraq, regardless of what Obama wants people to think. And as for pulling troops out, the troops he did pull out were pulled out on Bush's timetable. Though, of course, Obama tried his hardest to keep the troops there longer, despite his campaign promises, but the Iraqi government wanted certain concessions he wasn't willing to give.

The point that needs to be made, however, is that this didn't happen because the U.S. left Iraq, but because the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

[deltex1]

Bush attacked Iraq and killed the enemy...brought them to their knees. Obabble surrendered and walked away. End of story.

 

[TemplarKormac]

None of that matters. You send a man or woman out to die and for what? Oh, nevermind.

 

[KNB]

The CIA trained the Mujaheddin in 1979 specifically to be able to wear down a more powerful invading army with guerrilla tactics that the US faced in Vietnam. It was designed to be a long, costly war without end, to bankrupt and demoralize the Soviet Union, which led to its collapse.

The United States of America is following the same path that the CIA laid out for the Soviet Union. The US has been spending $2b each week in Afghanistan for ten years without any notion of what victory is, while American workers remain unemployed, American cities file for bankruptcy and thousands of American families grieve.

What are we fighting for?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY]Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953
How Zbigniew Brzezinski Created the Taliban | RedState
Updating U.S. Strategy for Helping Afghan Freedom Fighters
The Iran-Contra Affair . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS
What the Afghan War Has in Common With the Vietnam War | Mother Jones
Afghanistan war more unpopular than Vietnam