What Were We Fighting For?

[bendog]

Let's get realistic here.

The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was always a polite fiction. A bunch of ethnic groups thrown together for adminstrative purposes by the British empire, only held together by a series of ruthless dictators, not any national identity...

So we are supposed to be surprised that the minute we pull out, it starts breaking up? Really?

Let Al Qaeda and Iran fight it out.

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

One thing I appreciated about Saddam ... he was holy terror on Sunni terrorists. He made Dick "waterboard" Cheney look a mere piker in the deterrence department.

 

[hangover]

What Were We Fighting For?

...for the profit of Cheney's Halliburton and the other military contractors.

more talking points from kos and huff puff. good parroting, dingleberry.

Truth hurts, huh dingleberry eater.

 

[protectionist]

Victory is being alive? Victory against Iraq which did not attack the US? How do you justify the Iraq invasion? Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on civilians? So did Bush. And let's remind everyone that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. So to avenge 9/11, Bush did to the Iraqi people exactly what Saddam Hussein did to them, even though they weren't involved with 9/11.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

No, there isn't any victory in a war where we have become the greater terrorist threat. 3,000 people getting killed in the World Trade Center does not justify killing 150,000 Iraqis who were not involved with 9/11. It certainly doesn't justify torture, drone strikes on civilians, use of chemical weapons, and lying to the United Nations. No, there is no victory in this war. The CIA trained the Afghan terrorist groups SPECIFICALLY to be able to wear down the more advanced Russian military over a prolonged period of time. America designed the Afghan war to never end. There is no victory to be had.

Sigh! None of what you're talking about is the issue. Read post # 199.

 

[hangover]

Let's get realistic here.

The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was always a polite fiction. A bunch of ethnic groups thrown together for adminstrative purposes by the British empire, only held together by a series of ruthless dictators, not any national identity...

So we are supposed to be surprised that the minute we pull out, it starts breaking up? Really?

Let Al Qaeda and Iran fight it out.

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

Want to get rid of terrorism? Then quit creating them.

 

[protectionist]

Let's get realistic here.

The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was always a polite fiction. A bunch of ethnic groups thrown together for adminstrative purposes by the British empire, only held together by a series of ruthless dictators, not any national identity...

So we are supposed to be surprised that the minute we pull out, it starts breaking up? Really?

Let Al Qaeda and Iran fight it out.

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

One thing I appreciated about Saddam ... he was holy terror on Sunni terrorists. He made Dick "waterboard" Cheney look a mere piker in the deterrence department.

You got it right EXCEPT that Saddam was terror against Shitites, not Sunnis. Saddam WAS a Sunni, himself, as was almost all of Iraq (in a region dominated by Shitites) Saddam, who saw any competing allegiances as a threat to his power, banned public commemorations of Shia rituals, and imprisoned and assassinated hundreds of clerics and deported thousands of Iraqi Shia.

Sunni and Shia divided in Iraq, the land of Cain and Abel | GlobalPost

 

[Synthaholic]

Like all those liberals who voted for the war, and continually voted to fund it?

Liberals didn't vote for the Iraq War.

Now say something stupid, like "Hillary voted for it".

Oh, my mistake. I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be the liberal party.

Yes, your mistake.

 

[KNB]

Victory is being alive? Victory against Iraq which did not attack the US? How do you justify the Iraq invasion? Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on civilians? So did Bush. And let's remind everyone that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. So to avenge 9/11, Bush did to the Iraqi people exactly what Saddam Hussein did to them, even though they weren't involved with 9/11.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

No, there isn't any victory in a war where we have become the greater terrorist threat. 3,000 people getting killed in the World Trade Center does not justify killing 150,000 Iraqis who were not involved with 9/11. It certainly doesn't justify torture, drone strikes on civilians, use of chemical weapons, and lying to the United Nations. No, there is no victory in this war. The CIA trained the Afghan terrorist groups SPECIFICALLY to be able to wear down the more advanced Russian military over a prolonged period of time. America designed the Afghan war to never end. There is no victory to be had.

Sigh! None of what you're talking about is the issue. Read post # 199.

Really? It's not the issue? America trained the predecessors of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in modern guerrilla tactics, ensuring that the Russians would fight a long, costly Vietnam-style war against insurgents for as long as they occupied Afghanistan, and now the US is exactly ten years into the same war against the same terrorists in Afghanistan, and that's not the issue?

The Central Intelligence Agency trained the Mujaheddin to be terrorists. There isn't any victory in this war because the CIA didn't want there to be any. America lost the war on terrorism in 1979 when the CIA was training and arming these terrorists. That's the only issue here because this war was wrong long before 9/11.

 

[protectionist]

Let's get realistic here.

The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was always a polite fiction. A bunch of ethnic groups thrown together for adminstrative purposes by the British empire, only held together by a series of ruthless dictators, not any national identity...

So we are supposed to be surprised that the minute we pull out, it starts breaking up? Really?

Let Al Qaeda and Iran fight it out.

And if and whenever al Qaeda wins, and gets control over Iraq's huge oil reserves$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? Then what ? You build a nuclear fallout shelter, and live underground for the rest of your life ? (if there IS any rest of your life)

Want to get rid of terrorism? Then quit creating them.

FALSE! Most Muslims living today are descendents of medieval Muslims, who were originally non-Muslims, and were forced to become Muslims, as children (their non-Muslim parents having been killed by marauding Muslims). These hundreds of millions of victims of Muslim aggression (on 3 continents) did nothing to create terrorism, or the terrorists who killed them. Those terrorists were created by the Koran, and they continue to be, to this day.

 

[KNB]

They were created by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America to be proxy soldiers against the Soviets beginning in June 1979 and lasting well into the 1980s. 9/11 was called "blowback".

FROM THE CIA'S OWN WEBSITE:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html

 

[Synthaholic]

I agree few liberals passed the profiles in courage moment .... BUT once the troops are in the field, you don't cut off their bullets ... or call them baby killers. Or protest in London.

Explain the bolded, please. Is it just typed awkwardly?

I posted a link to those who did not vote for the authorization in another thread. However, I did NOT say THAT was a profiles in courage moment. Personally, I approved of the notion that we needed an authorization of sorts to go to the UN. At the time, I had no doubt that at least a good number of dems viewed this as an expediency, because they suspected, rightly, that W would never ask for another vote before invading. That is, opposing authorization was politically risky, because at that pt, sanctions/military threat had not forced Saddam to allow inspections, and the public was sold on making sure Saddam didn't have smallpox. EDIT - PLUS THE DEMS DID NOT WANT TO APPEAR WEAK IN CASE W PULLED OFF AN INVASION AND THE IRAQIS GREETED US WITH FLOWERS AND GROUP HUGS. Of course, it turned out that saddam was no more dangerous to the US than Somalia. Still, the vote for authorization is logically defensible, since it helped lead to the sanctions/military threat that did force Saddam to open up.

What I believe was the moment in courage moment was after Blix and El-Baradi found NOTHING beyond lost precursors with a short shelf life and perhaps some aging artillary shells. There was no active nuclear or biological program that posed a threat. There were no WOMD, and W KNEW it when he sent the troops in. (and that was the end of me voting for the House of Bush, btw)

I don't recall who, at the time W was revving up the diesels, said 'Now hold on here, why are we doing this." I believe Obama was one of those few who did raise an objection, and who passed the courage test.

I don't think he's a good potus though, but credit where its due, imo.

He was certainly one of them, along with virtually all of the Liberals, like Feingold, Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Inouye, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Wyden, Stabenow, Wellstone, etc.

The only ones who are viewed as Liberals who voted for it were Schumer, Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller.

Nobody on the Left considers Hillary a Liberal. Same with Diane Feinstein. They are centrist hawks. Schumer is a Wall St. guy and an Israel-firster - also not Liberal.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am sure you meant to say "liberals" and Libertarians were correct, once again.

.

Yes, you are correct. True Libertarians also warned against it.

Many conservatives were opposed to the stupid Iraq war, you are just lying pretending that all republicans and conservatives supported that fiasco.

Which prominent, influential ones were on the record?

 

[Synthaholic]

Like all those liberals who voted for the war, and continually voted to fund it?

Liberals didn't vote for the Iraq War.

Now say something stupid, like "Hillary voted for it".

Well OK but lots of democrats voted for it.

We're not talking about Democrats, we're talking about Liberals.

Try to keep up.

 

[Synthaholic]

The zero sum ratio clearly reveals any further involvement in Iraq will lead only to further loss.

The eventual outcome is leaning to Iraq allied to Iran and opposed to our interests in the ME.

Thanks, Republicans.

 

[protectionist]

Victory is being alive? Victory against Iraq which did not attack the US? How do you justify the Iraq invasion? Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on civilians? So did Bush. And let's remind everyone that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. So to avenge 9/11, Bush did to the Iraqi people exactly what Saddam Hussein did to them, even though they weren't involved with 9/11.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

No, there isn't any victory in a war where we have become the greater terrorist threat. 3,000 people getting killed in the World Trade Center does not justify killing 150,000 Iraqis who were not involved with 9/11. It certainly doesn't justify torture, drone strikes on civilians, use of chemical weapons, and lying to the United Nations. No, there is no victory in this war. The CIA trained the Afghan terrorist groups SPECIFICALLY to be able to wear down the more advanced Russian military over a prolonged period of time. America designed the Afghan war to never end. There is no victory to be had.

Sigh! None of what you're talking about is the issue. Read post # 199.

Really? It's not the issue? America trained the predecessors of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in modern guerrilla tactics, ensuring that the Russians would fight a long, costly Vietnam-style war against insurgents for as long as they occupied Afghanistan, and now the US is exactly ten years into the same war against the same terrorists in Afghanistan, and that's not the issue?

The Central Intelligence Agency trained the Mujaheddin to be terrorists. There isn't any victory in this war because the CIA didn't want there to be any. America lost the war on terrorism in 1979 when the CIA was training and arming these terrorists. That's the only issue here because this war was wrong long before 9/11.

I said IT'S NOT THE ISSUE, I think you heard me right. And since you're going to be so dense on this, I guess I'm going to have to yet again repeat whaT IS THE ISSUE >> SELF-DEFENSE.

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, USS Cole, World Trade Ctr (1993), Times Square bomber, Shoe bomber, Underwear bomber, Christmas tree bomber, Boston bombers, LAX shooter, Beltway sniper, etc. etc.
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.

In the midst of your scattered confusion, allow me to set a few things straight.

1. The Russians have NOTHING to do with why we are fighting.

2. The US is not fighting against Iraq.

3. The Iraq invasion is not the issue.

4. America did not design any war to never end.

5. The only reason we are fighting is to try to keep the American nation from being destroyed, and the American people from being blown to bits. Get it ?

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh, my mistake. I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be the liberal party.

There were 126 Democrats in the House liberal enough to vote against it. Only 21 in the Senate.

Proving that plenty of self-identified liberals did vote for the Iraq war.

Bullshit.

 

[protectionist]

They were created by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America to be proxy soldiers against the Soviets beginning in June 1979 and lasting well into the 1980s. 9/11 was called "blowback".

FROM THE CIA'S OWN WEBSITE:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html

We're talking about why US soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan (and should still be doing the same in Iraq), NOW in 2014, not a history lesson.

 

[KNB]

4. America did not design any war to never end.

CIA & Afghanistan

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, President Carter directed CIA to assist the Afghan mujahidin. CIA came to see that the indigenous Afghan opposition to the Soviets was less an organized movement than widespread opposition by villages and tribes.

Through Pakistan, CIA provided the mujahidin with money, weapons, medical supplies, and communications equipment. Initially the goal was to drain Soviet resources by keeping their forces bogged down. In 1985, CIA shifted from a plan of attrition to one that would help the rebels win. One of the pivotal moments came in September 1986, when the mujahidin used CIA-provided Stinger missiles to shoot down three Soviet Mi-24D helicopter gunships. As part of this escalation of financial and materiel support, President Reagan issued new guidance that put CIA into more direct contact with rebel commanders, beginning an era of CIA interaction with tribal and local leaders that continues through the post-9/11 era.

The Soviet withdrawal in 1989 eliminated the key interest that the United States had shared with the mujahidin. The foreign fighters who had joined the Afghan resistance dispersed to other parts of the world, and the local commanders undertook a violent and difficult struggle for control of the country’s resources and government, which culminated in Taliban rule.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html

Same war, same country, same shit, different year.

 

[Desperado]

5. The only reason we are fighting is to try to keep the American nation from being destroyed, and the American people from being blown to bits. Get it ?

do you also run around your house yelling at the top of your lungs: "The Sky is falling"
Enjoy your kool aid.

 

[birddog]

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.

If you believe that old mantra, you epitomize stupidity!

Many of us conservatives were not in favor of putting ground troops in Iraq. Both parties were involved in that war which was set up by B. Clinton. Oil, Israel, and military profit were the factors.

 

[bendog]

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.

If you believe that old mantra, you epitomize stupidity!

Many of us conservatives were not in favor of putting ground troops in Iraq. Both parties were involved in that war which was set up by B. Clinton. Oil, Israel, and military profit were the factors.

you're blaming Bill Clinton for W invading Iraq to topple Saddam, install democracy and get the oil?

And I don't recall much dissent from the gop or conservatives.