What Were We Fighting For?

[JoeB131]

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

It was answered pages ago: we fought for nothing.

The first part of your sentence was right. YES, it WAS answered pages ago (on Page 1, Post # 14) The second part of your sentence was wrong. We fought, and still fight, and need to keep on fighting for our SURVIVAL.


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.

Maybe you didn't notice all this, in your haze of off topic political talk.

There's nothing in that part of the world we should give a shit about. Not even the oil, since most of our oil comes from THIS hemisphere.

If Al Qaeda comes out on top, it's because we've put them there.

 

[kaz]

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons)

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

If neocons are liberals (economically), then they are really OLDcons, who were always in favor of high taxes on the rich (91-92% for the entire 8 years of the Eisenhower administration) to support a big, strong govt, capable of providing a strong secure, National Security.

I didn't make up the word just like I didn't make up the definition. You and boo arguing you don't like it is as irrelevant as if you argued you don't like the word spaghetti

 

[kaz]

hmmm, would that be neolibs?

Imo, neo stands for new. So it's really (new) conservatives.

I agree, they are hardly conservative. Hence Pseudo-cons.....

Your opinion of what the word means is irrelevant, it's not your word. If you want to make up your own definition that's fine, but you shouldn't use it on a website as if anyone who knows what they are talking about knows what you're talking about. It's actually not hard to do some research on the word.

There really isn't any patented definition of "Pseudo-Conservative". Psuedo simply means false. So any notion of what is a false brand of conservatism (based on a definition of conservatism) could fit > "Pseudo-Conservative".

I presented my perspective on this in Post # 336, based on how I have seen the evolution of the word conservative change form the Eisenhower 1950s, to the Reagan 80s, to now. Quite amazing how so-called "conservatives" can rally around a phony like Reagan, who gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, 32 years after Ike, the REAL Conservative, chased them back to Mexico in Operation Wetback (1954)

Incidentally, while the REAL conservative, Eisenhower, was grinding his way across Germany in World War II, as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, the psuedo (fake) "conservative: Reagan, was in Hollywood, making movies about it.

I agree, if you guys want to make up definitions for pseudocon or neolib then that works. I meant you/he making up a definition for neocon is what's irrelevant. A neocon is a liberal who supports spreading democracy through heavy use of the military. That's what it means. It doesn't mean people boo or the liberals don't like.

 

[kaz]

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

This couldn't be more wrong. It is critical to have US troops in ALL hotspots around the world where Muslim jihadists can assume power, especially in places like Afghanistan (close proximity to Pakistan's nukes), and Iraq, with such a valuable oil resource at stake, to enable the loons to acquire nuclear weaponry.

What you're doing is a self fulfilling prophesy. We take on every bad guy in the world, then we are every bad guy's enemy, then we need the military more and more to defend ourselves.

Why exactly should the middle east be our problem? Then the Eurowieneis stab us in the back when they are the primary beneficiaries both of the oil that comes out of the middle east as well as our making ourselves the targets of the terrorists, and the liberal constantly undercut their country when as Obama shows they have the same plan just to wrest control of the steering wheel.

 

[Freewill]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXspsfoPX50]Country Joe Mcdonald at Woodstock - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Freewill]

Ah what the hell how about another blast from the past:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzZh6-h9fM]Jimi Hendrix - The Star Spangled Banner [ American Anthem ] ( Live at Woodstock 1969 ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[protectionist]

It was answered pages ago: we fought for nothing.

The first part of your sentence was right. YES, it WAS answered pages ago (on Page 1, Post # 14) The second part of your sentence was wrong. We fought, and still fight, and need to keep on fighting for our SURVIVAL.


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.

Maybe you didn't notice all this, in your haze of off topic political talk.

There's nothing in that part of the world we should give a shit about. Not even the oil, since most of our oil comes from THIS hemisphere.

If Al Qaeda comes out on top, it's because we've put them there.

Are you dense ? Try reading the post again. We SHOULD give a shit about being annihilated. Get it ?

And 2 people thanked you for that idiot post. HA HA> Oh God, this thread is really sinking now. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[KNB]

Trans-Afghan Pipeline
What the Future Holds for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline | "International Affairs" | RIA Novosti

 

[protectionist]

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

This couldn't be more wrong. It is critical to have US troops in ALL hotspots around the world where Muslim jihadists can assume power, especially in places like Afghanistan (close proximity to Pakistan's nukes), and Iraq, with such a valuable oil resource at stake, to enable the loons to acquire nuclear weaponry.

What you're doing is a self fulfilling prophesy. We take on every bad guy in the world, then we are every bad guy's enemy, then we need the military more and more to defend ourselves.

Why exactly should the middle east be our problem? Then the Eurowieneis stab us in the back when they are the primary beneficiaries both of the oil that comes out of the middle east as well as our making ourselves the targets of the terrorists, and the liberal constantly undercut their country when as Obama shows they have the same plan just to wrest control of the steering wheel.

I think you kind of lost me there. In general, I suspect the middle east is going to be the problem of any country that doesn't bow down to Allah, and kiss the asses of the jihadists of that era. Hasn't been much different for the last 1400 years. Biggest difference is that when these marauding maniacs were riding their horses all over southern Europe, north Africa, and Asia, they didn't have the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. Like it or not, that danger now exists, and we can't ignore it.

 

[KNB]

Biggest difference is that when these marauding maniacs were riding their horses all over southern Europe, north Africa, and Asia, they didn't have the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. Like it or not, that danger now exists, and we can't ignore it.

What part of THE CIA CREATED THE MODERN JIHAD do you not understand? It was the United States of America that trained and armed the jihadists in Afghanistan to bog down the Soviets in an endless, costly "Vietnam-style" guerrilla war.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html

This wasn't that long ago. Beginning in June 1979 and continuing through the 1980s, the CIA gave financial and advisory support to the Jihad to wage their jihad against the infidel Soviets. Today, the jihad is waging the exact same guerrilla war against the infidel Americans.

America cannot win this war with a more advanced military. The Soviets couldn't do it ten years because of the CIA training and supporting the Jihad to be able to win a long, drawn-out guerrilla war. The US won't win now for the exact same reason.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

If you consider a one word answer, my choice is "hegemony."

"'Hegemony is as old as Mankind…' -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor

"The term 'New Middle East' was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the 'Greater Middle East.'

"This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the 'New Middle East,' was subsequently heralded by the U.S.

"Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a 'New Middle East' was being launched from Lebanon."

If you believe what Wesley Clark wrote in 2003 regarding a US plan for regime change in seven Muslim states, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran, and this plan was being acted upon within months of 911, scroll down a few pages in the following link and you'll find a map of this new Middle East.

If this plan exists, it has probably been existence, in one form or another, longer than your father has been alive.

War is a Racket

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research

 

[Contumacious]

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

The problem is that the reason they are bad is because the warmongers provoked the fucking incidents.

Concerning Iran:

The US deposed their duly elected PM and then installed the Shah who murdered millions of Iranians.

In 1992 the USS Vincennes shot down a CIVILIAN AIRLINE -Iran Air Flight 655.

So we must first ascertain WHY they are "bad"?

.

 

[kaz]

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

The problem is that the reason they are bad is because the warmongers provoked the fucking incidents.

Concerning Iran:

The US deposed their duly elected PM and then installed the Shah who murdered millions of Iranians.

In 1992 the USS Vincennes shot down a CIVILIAN AIRLINE -Iran Air Flight 655.

So we must first ascertain WHY they are "bad"?

.

I think I addressed your point in the part you highlighted in my post.

 

[protectionist]

Biggest difference is that when these marauding maniacs were riding their horses all over southern Europe, north Africa, and Asia, they didn't have the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. Like it or not, that danger now exists, and we can't ignore it.

What part of THE CIA CREATED THE MODERN JIHAD do you not understand? It was the United States of America that trained and armed the jihadists in Afghanistan to bog down the Soviets in an endless, costly "Vietnam-style" guerrilla war.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html

This wasn't that long ago. Beginning in June 1979 and continuing through the 1980s, the CIA gave financial and advisory support to the Jihad to wage their jihad against the infidel Soviets. Today, the jihad is waging the exact same guerrilla war against the infidel Americans.

America cannot win this war with a more advanced military. The Soviets couldn't do it ten years because of the CIA training and supporting the Jihad to be able to win a long, drawn-out guerrilla war. The US won't win now for the exact same reason.

There is no such thing as "win" in this kind if war. It is like trying to win a war against mosquitos, by killing all of them. You can't. All you can do is PREVENT them from killing you. And even that is not preventable, unless everyone is on board together in the defensive battle (as we saw with the Fort Hood fiasco). It's a battle that is fought on various fronts, The biggest and most important one is the war in the Middle East, and it's primary objective should be to keep the loons from getting nuclear weapons or other effective WMDs (ex biological agents)

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

hmmm, would that be neolibs?

Imo, neo stands for new. So it's really (new) conservatives.

I agree, they are hardly conservative. Hence Pseudo-cons.....

Your opinion of what the word means is irrelevant, it's not your word. If you want to make up your own definition that's fine, but you shouldn't use it on a website as if anyone who knows what they are talking about knows what you're talking about. It's actually not hard to do some research on the word.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334631-what-were-we-fighting-for-22.html#post8474143