What Were We Fighting For?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Are we going to hear about "DINOs" now?

 

[R.C. Christian]

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.

That is the stupidest retort I've heard in some time. Please continue. I could use a good laugh.

 

[Iceman]

We are fighting? What the hell does that mean? Your fatheaded ass isn't doing shit, and neither am I. Glad I am not either, Afghanistan and Iraq are bullshit wars that should have never been fought.

 

[Freewill]

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.

We, the US, has not been defeated in every war since WW2. I assume you would say Korea and VN. But in neither did we leave because we were defeated. Absolute victory, maybe not, but defeat, no.

Korea: we re-established the staus quo; no defeat.

Vietnam: we won every battle and lost the war.

Your are talking like that traitor Cronkite. We left Vietnam to the South Vietnamese, they lost the war.

 

[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.

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.

Oh yeah, and calling yourself liberal does the same, I'd gather. Given the Democrats have also sold out to corporate interests... Funny I should get a lecture from someone who spews those corporately influenced talking points via his party's own establishment. You're pathetic. Democrats claim to be for the poor and less fortunate, but are also driven by those very same corporate interests. You hypocrite. [MENTION=20866]Dutch[/MENTION]

 

[JakeStarkey]

We, the US, has not been defeated in every war since WW2. I assume you would say Korea and VN. But in neither did we leave because we were defeated. Absolute victory, maybe not, but defeat, no.

Korea: we re-established the staus quo; no defeat.

Vietnam: we won every battle and lost the war.

Your are talking like that traitor Cronkite. We left Vietnam to the South Vietnamese, they lost the war.

I am telling the truth, you are not. We withdrew and that withdrawal, just like British leaving the loyalists on their own in our colonies, was a defeat.

No two ways about it.

 

[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.

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.

YOU are foolish. If the US does not police the world, it will perish. The US is threatened by criminal maniacs all over the world. And it is throughout the world that the danger of these come from. To only sit at home and act defensively, is suicide in today's world. Unfortunately, it is necessary to go to where America's enemies are to stop them. Part of what they do against us, they do here. Part of it they do there. Both need to be addressed.

 

[protectionist]

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

I explained in Post # 14 for what.

 

[protectionist]

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?

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube

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

"Victory" is us not being obliterated. Do you have to see millions of Americans turned into ashes, to be able to get it ?

 

[protectionist]

We weren't fighting for America. Special interests sought that war and the interests of the public were not at the heart of that war. It was a waste of time and we need to gtfo and never return to that area. The Middle East needs to remain there and be left alone.

You are asking for the destruction of the USA.

 

[protectionist]

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 **** 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.

Gee, I come from a military family too. Better than that, I WAS IN THE MILITARY YOU ******* DINK!

There was never any damn reason for us to go the Iraq, and the best thing we could have done for our troops was bring them the **** home. Your little comparisons of games and houses can't even begin to compare to people losing their ******* lives.

If you want Iraq to be secure so damn bad, go there your ******* self and stop sending other people to their deaths.

How dumb can you be ? Even now with Fallujah and Ramdi being overtaken by al Qaeda (and it's all over the news), you can't figure out why US troops need to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan ? (and never should have left) See Post # 14. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

EARTH TO WQ: It's not about Iraq being secure. It's about us (the USA) being secure (rather than being turned into a pile of ashes).

 

[protectionist]

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

The deaths of some people is not proper justification for the deaths of more people. How many more people were you willing to have killed or maimed, how many families destroyed on the basis of justifying a war that was wrong to begin with? When people are needlessly being killed it makes no sense to send more people to be needlessly killed in an effort to justify the earlier deaths.

You are clueless.

 

[asterism]

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.

Who is this "we?"

 

[protectionist]

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

Our enemy? Most of the world is our enemy?

The USA has some very distinct enemies around the world. Don't you know who they are ?

 

[Iceman]

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

Our enemy? Most of the world is our enemy?

The USA has some very distinct enemies around the world. Don't you know who they are ?

Speak for yourself, no damn way you could get me to fight the enemies of US Gov, they ain't my enemies.

 

[protectionist]

I never thought we should have gone in there in the first place. It was not worth 5000 American lives

Do I think we should have wasted more American lives to keep the peace?

Hell no

5000 lives (over 13 years) is less than 1/4 of what the US lost in ONE BATTLE in World War II (the Battle of the Bulge)

It is better to lose 200 MILLION lives after a mass nuclear attack ?

People in this thread need to check the balance scale.

 

[Iceman]

Anyone that joins the US Military at this point is a sucker.

 

[protectionist]

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

The deaths of some people is not proper justification for the deaths of more people. How many more people were you willing to have killed or maimed, how many families destroyed on the basis of justifying a war that was wrong to begin with? When people are needlessly being killed it makes no sense to send more people to be needlessly killed in an effort to justify the earlier deaths.

It reminds me of staying in a bad relationship because so much has been invested. No. Get out there and live your damn life. Salvage what you can, and go from there. Don't throw the good in after the bad.

We'd likely still be in Vietnam, on those terms.

Vietnam had no justification. Iraq and Afghanistan do. If the US troops leave, there will be more al Qaeda takeovers, and then Americans WON'T HAVE any lives to live.

 

[protectionist]

The deaths of some people is not proper justification for the deaths of more people. How many more people were you willing to have killed or maimed, how many families destroyed on the basis of justifying a war that was wrong to begin with? When people are needlessly being killed it makes no sense to send more people to be needlessly killed in an effort to justify the earlier deaths.

Well, I've seen what effect it's had on my father firsthand. I think it's done as much destruction to him as the war has done to them. If you were paying attention, we were actively training Iraqis to maintain their own security. We were well on our way to giving their country back to them, no more bloodshed needed to take place, Kevin. But this is what happens when you pull out prematurely. Sigh, all of this hyperbole.

After ten years it's hardly premature. They didn't want the government we set up for them badly enough to defend it. They deserve to be run by religious extremists. That whole section of the world is backwards and deserves what they let themselves be oppressed by. I've been there. Done that. Those people can't handle having rights because they couldn't stand up for them.

I don't give a rat's ass what they do.

 

[asterism]

Very good question...

What the hell were we fighting for in Iraq?

Continued relevance of the cease-fire and showing that the US is not a paper tiger.