What Were We Fighting For?

[Bumberclyde]

When Saigon fell, we lost. Many a vet I've spoken to said we would have won had it not been for the political posturing going on in Washington. When we successfully repelled the Tet Offensive, that should have signaled that we had the superior force to go the distance. But when our government issued orders for our boys not to pursue Viet-Kong into Laos and Cambodia, all bets were off.

You lost in nam because the US didn't use nukes.

And why would we have nuked Vietnam, exactly? We didn't need nukes to beat them.

Um... Um... YOU LOST! Of course you could have used some nukes. Why defoliate with agent orange when you could just nuke the whole ******* place?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Templar in Battle

 

[BDBoop]

What Were We Fighting For?

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

Which would be why they are perfectly happy keeping our soldiers over there forever.

However it does NOT explain couch potato basement dwellers agreeing with them, and believing that they are on a sure moral footing with anybody that didn't serve and wants the war to be over.

Not real rational, that one.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Being from a military family doesn't give your opinion more credence.

Which game have you been playing for the last ten years? You certainly weren't in Iraq. So, before you call me a blowhard, put your money where your mouth is, get off of your grandmother's couch, and go make the sacrifice that you're willing to make in a country that doesn't want us there, for a nation that doesn't want to be there.

Nor does being an anti war liberal make your opinion any more valid. You have zero place to tell me what to do with my life, JED, especially as antagonistic as you've been towards me. You're a liberal, you advocate people sitting on their grandmother's couch relying on government to take care of their every need. In your world nobody has to make a sacrifice. You hypocrite. Anyhow, given that almost all of my uncles, my grandfather and my father fought in a war over the past century, I've been privy to the their thoughts, experiences and sacrifices as they were serving their country.

By the way, have you fought for your country? Have you ever been to Iraq? Or were you busy protesting the war like everyone else? What have you done, oh internet warrior? Obama has a particular disdain for our men and women in uniform, Mr. Gates already made that clear in his book. The only time he wasn't dispassionate for them was when they got rid of DADT. That's it. Obama is a politically driven man.

You have no right to lecture me.

TK is pro-war. So long as he doesn't have to be doing the fighting, that is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You lost in nam because the US didn't use nukes.

And why would we have nuked Vietnam, exactly? We didn't need nukes to beat them.

Um... Um... YOU LOST! Of course you could have used some nukes. Why defoliate with agent orange when you could just nuke the whole ******* place?

Please kindly shut the **** up, bunglingclyde.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Better Agent Orange than killing 500,000 people in one fell swoop.

 

[BlackSand]

These two guys knew what they were fighting for ...





It wasn't Halliburton, Oil, The War Machine or Politics.
I know what they were fighting for because I was able to ask them ... You can't because they are dead.

.

 

[Bumberclyde]

And why would we have nuked Vietnam, exactly? We didn't need nukes to beat them.

Um... Um... YOU LOST! Of course you could have used some nukes. Why defoliate with agent orange when you could just nuke the whole ******* place?

Please kindly shut the **** up, bunglingclyde.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Better Agent Orange than killing 500,000 people in one fell swoop.

But you lost using Agent Orange.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why was it that President Bush signed the agreement to withdraw the occupation force?

 

[Bumberclyde]

Why was it that President Bush signed the agreement to withdraw the occupation force?

He had just done a huge line of cocaine and he was FEELIN' IT!

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Didn't you claim that "Billions" were spent. Where do you think it was spent?

 

[bendog]

why was it that president bush signed the agreement to withdraw the occupation force?

he had just done a huge line of cocaine and he was feelin' it!

bump! (-:

 

[Kosh]

This thread is proof that the far left want failure in Iraq so that an (R) will look bad. The far left is willing to sacrifice millions for their cause and celebrate every death.

 

[Contumacious]

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? .

You can ONLY use the pronoun "we" if you are:

1- a shareholder or an employee of KBR, Halliburton or any other war profiteer

2- a warmonger

3- a Zionist

4- a politician controlled by AIPAC

5- a patriotic American who allows DC to define patriotism

.

 

[bendog]

This thread is proof that the far left want failure in Iraq so that an (R) will look bad. The far left is willing to sacrifice millions for their cause and celebrate every death.

UMMM, Iraq was a failure while W was still potus. In fact, only the deluded ever thought that dog would hunt after Blix and el-Baradi got inside. That clusterfk even took out Hill and gave us a black potus named ... barck hussein obama. Mission JFC accomplished.

 

[Kosh]

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? .

You can ONLY use the pronoun "we" if you are:

1- a shareholder or an employee of KBR, Halliburton or any other war profiteer

2- a warmonger

3- a Zionist

4- a politician controlled by AIPAC

.

And the far left propaganda continues...

 

[Kosh]

This thread is proof that the far left want failure in Iraq so that an (R) will look bad. The far left is willing to sacrifice millions for their cause and celebrate every death.

UMMM, Iraq was a failure while W was still potus. In fact, only the deluded ever thought that dog would hunt after Blix and el-Baradi got inside. That clusterfk even took out Hill and gave us a black potus named ... barck hussein obama. Mission JFC accomplished.

More proof that the far left was wanting Iraq to be a failure from the very beginning and was willing to sacrifice millions for their cause.

 

[bendog]

This thread is proof that the far left want failure in Iraq so that an (R) will look bad. The far left is willing to sacrifice millions for their cause and celebrate every death.

UMMM, Iraq was a failure while W was still potus. In fact, only the deluded ever thought that dog would hunt after Blix and el-Baradi got inside. That clusterfk even took out Hill and gave us a black potus named ... barck hussein obama. Mission JFC accomplished.

More proof that the far left was wanting Iraq to be a failure from the very beginning and was willing to sacrifice millions for their cause.

Here's a cyberquarter for you. The Shia and Sunni REALLY don't like each other, and the Kurds have been after a seperate nation for DECADES. And W's father knew better than to try what jr fcked up.

 

[BlindBoo]

This thread is proof that the far left want failure in Iraq so that an (R) will look bad. The far left is willing to sacrifice millions for their cause and celebrate every death.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. ...... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ......we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

-GWHB

I feel bad for President Bush 41, having had his son destroy what he had achieved.



Okay I don't feel that bad for him, he could have just told Saddam that we would defend Kuwait as if we had a defense pact with the Kingdom, (we didn't), instead of having the ambassador tell him we had no opinion in Arab on Arab conflicts.

Whoa, forgot the link.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3019.htm

 

[Contumacious]

What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? .

You can ONLY use the pronoun "we" if you are:

1- a shareholder or an employee of KBR, Halliburton or any other war profiteer

2- a warmonger

3- a Zionist

4- a politician controlled by AIPAC

.

And the far left propaganda continues...

And the far-gone gibberish continues....

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Um... Um... YOU LOST! Of course you could have used some nukes. Why defoliate with agent orange when you could just nuke the whole ******* place?

Please kindly shut the **** up, bunglingclyde.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Better Agent Orange than killing 500,000 people in one fell swoop.

But you lost using Agent Orange.

So, we should simply nuke people? You're sick in the head dude.