What Were We Fighting For?

[ShawnChris13]

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.

It's safe to say that someone's great great great great great great great great great grandfather has no bearing on the world stage, middle eastern religious fanatics, or the term terrorism as we know it today. Terrorists are 'created' by governments who deem those that oppose them as such. This is why the left and the right keep throwing that word around like it's some universal term.


This whole thread is turning into a cacophony of audacious discussion.

 

[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.

Bullshit.

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

 

[BDBoop]

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 then I wonder - Obama in Bush shoes. Knowing all that, would we have gone over there to begin with.

 

[westwall]

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 then I wonder - Obama in Bush shoes. Knowing all that, would we have gone over there to begin with.

Sadly, probably.

 

[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 then I wonder - Obama in Bush shoes. Knowing all that, would we have gone over there to begin with.

I doubt it, but imo it'd have gone the way of Syria. Eventually.

 

[kaz]

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.

They also kill night watchmen supporting their families in empty factories at night to divert attention from cum stains on intern's dresses.

 

[protectionist]

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.

It is a TOTALLY different war, fought for TOTALLY different reasons, as I've already explained sufficiently, 3 times now.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Do you also never listen to the top intelligence experts in the world ? They're in the links I supplied in the previous posts. Read Baby, Read! Sounds like you've been enjoying YOUR Kool-Aid (MSNBC ?)

 

[protectionist]

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.

None of those are the main reason for US troops to be in Iraq (then AND now). As we all can see now (unless you're blind), another, and perhaps the only really important reason, was/is to deny al Qaeda and the other Muslim loonies the access they need to get nuclear weapons. If you can't see how, you need to go back and read the whole thread.

 

[Pogo]

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

Bullshit.

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

 

[protectionist]

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.

It's safe to say that someone's great great great great great great great great great grandfather has no bearing on the world stage, middle eastern religious fanatics, or the term terrorism as we know it today. Terrorists are 'created' by governments who deem those that oppose them as such. This is why the left and the right keep throwing that word around like it's some universal term.

This whole thread is turning into a cacophony of audacious discussion.

1. No it's NOT safe to say that at all. The great majority of "Muslims" today are that only because their non-Muslim ancestors were killed by marauding Muslims.

2. Try reading the Koran.The govts of today didn't create it, nor did the terrorists of today. It is the Koran that created the terrorists, as it has been doing for 1400 years.

 

[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

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bullshit.

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

 

[JoeB131]

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)

Well, we might get off our asses and finally find alternatives to oil...

But probably unlikely Al Qaeda will win.

If they did, they wouldn't hae the resources to extract it from the ground.

 

[Contumacious]

What Were We Fighting For?.

We were fighting for the right to have a low life motherfucking cop use our conceal carry license as probable cause to stop and order us , and our family , out of the vehicle.

.

 

[Pogo]

Again, are we going to start talking about "DINOs" now? If so, how many "real" liberals will vote for "DINO" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

Actually Synth didn't even bring up "DINOs" -- you did. His point was completely different, that you were lumping "Democrats" and "Liberals" into the same taco. Which you were.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"DINOs" and "RINOs" do not exist. They're a fantasy concocted by demagogues who would place the interest of party lockstep over the interests of We the People, which just demonstrates where their priorities lie.

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

Actually Synth didn't even bring up "DINOs" -- you did. His point was completely different, that you were lumping "Democrats" and "Liberals" into the same taco. Which you were.

I brought up the actual term "DINOs," but his point and my response are perfectly in sync. Conservatives came up with "RINOs" to denote Republicans who weren't "real" conservatives, and now you and Synth are trying to decipher who among the Democrats are "real" liberals. Thus, "DINOs."

 

[Pogo]

Well since Synth is unwilling to answer this question I suppose we'll never get his side of the story.

Actually Synth didn't even bring up "DINOs" -- you did. His point was completely different, that you were lumping "Democrats" and "Liberals" into the same taco. Which you were.

I brought up the actual term "DINOs," but his point and my response are perfectly in sync. Conservatives came up with "RINOs" to denote Republicans who weren't "real" conservatives, and now you and Synth are trying to decipher who among the Democrats are "real" liberals. Thus, "DINOs."

How exactly to you get "DINO" -- with a D --- out of examining who the Liberals (with an L) are?

I see what you did: you start with a false premise. To wit, that RINO has something to do with who "real conservatives" are. That won't work. You're also working under the false assumption that "Democrat = Liberal". The fallacy of which was what Synth called bullshit on in the first place (as do I), and yet you go on using it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually Synth didn't even bring up "DINOs" -- you did. His point was completely different, that you were lumping "Democrats" and "Liberals" into the same taco. Which you were.

I brought up the actual term "DINOs," but his point and my response are perfectly in sync. Conservatives came up with "RINOs" to denote Republicans who weren't "real" conservatives, and now you and Synth are trying to decipher who among the Democrats are "real" liberals. Thus, "DINOs."

How exactly to you get "DINO" -- with a D --- out of examining who the Liberals (with an L) are?

I see what you did: you start with a false premise. To wit, that RINO has something to do with who "real conservatives" are. That won't work. You're also working under the false assumption that "Democrat = Liberal". The fallacy of which was what Synth called bullshit on in the first place (as do I), and yet you go on using it.

Then please explain to me exactly what conservatives who use the term "RINO" are actually saying.

 

[Pogo]

I brought up the actual term "DINOs," but his point and my response are perfectly in sync. Conservatives came up with "RINOs" to denote Republicans who weren't "real" conservatives, and now you and Synth are trying to decipher who among the Democrats are "real" liberals. Thus, "DINOs."

How exactly to you get "DINO" -- with a D --- out of examining who the Liberals (with an L) are?

I see what you did: you start with a false premise. To wit, that RINO has something to do with who "real conservatives" are. That won't work. You're also working under the false assumption that "Democrat = Liberal". The fallacy of which was what Synth called bullshit on in the first place (as do I), and yet you go on using it.

Then please explain to me exactly what conservatives who use the term "RINO" are actually saying.

I don't think such people exist. True conservatives wouldn't do that.

As I said when it first came up, it's not "conservatives" using that term -- it's party slaves: those who believe lockstep political party action is more important than the constituents who elect those representatives.

If anything it's usually true conservatism that they're objecting to and hanging the label on -- for example Olympia Snowe got RINOed for declining to run around hair-on-fire with the so-called "social conservative" issues, which is basically a euphemism for theocrats, not conservatives.

Those who employ a term like RINO to eat their own are only participating in partisanship, the 'my way or the highway' school of politics. Everything proposed by party X must be opposed by party Y, simply because it's from Party X. It's a wish for a one-party state over democratic compromise. That kind of thinking is how we got into this morass that is our contemporary discourse.

(/offtopic)