What Were We Fighting For?

[protectionist]

You don't think The New Deal was Liberal?

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

 

[Synthaholic]

There's no twisting, I'm merely asking you to clarify your comments. Does voting "Yes" to the Iraq war disqualify somebody from being a liberal? I'm merely trying to understand your classifications because I think most people would classify Hillary Clinton as a liberal. I can understand nuance, I'm merely asking you to explain yours so that I can understand your previous assertions. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Incorrect.

Most people who listen to conservative media would classify Hillary Clinton as a Liberal.

Most Liberals would not. Same for Bill.

It's - of course - in the interests of simpleton thinkers like Rush and Sean to classify anyone who isn't a conservative as a Liberal. It's a catch-all insult for the extreme fringe.

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

 

[Contumacious]

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

Yo ding dong, have you researched to find out what went on before Pearl Harbor?

.

 

[kaz]

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

Yo ding dong, have you researched to find out what went on before Pearl Harbor?

.

I'm with you on the middle east, but both the Nazis and Japanese attacked us. And had we not joined the allies, we'd have been fighting them on our own. This is a cutting off your note to spite your face argument.

 

[Contumacious]

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

Yo ding dong, have you researched to find out what went on before Pearl Harbor?

.

I'm with you on the middle east, but both the Nazis and Japanese attacked us. And had we not joined the allies, we'd have been fighting them on our own. This is a cutting off your note to spite your face argument.

Again, what was going BEFORE Pearl Harbor?

Find out if goddamned FDR was SECRETLY fighting the Japs in Indochina.

Find out if FDR froze the Japs assets in the US BEFORE the attack?

Find out if FDR directed the oil companies not to sell petroleum products to the Japs?

Find out if FDR knew of the impending attack but PURPOSELY CHOSE NOT TO PROTECT PEARL HARBOR IN ORDER TO UNITE THE NATION IN HIS DETERMINATION TO JOIN WWII.

BTW, when where did Hitler attack the US BEFORE FDR joined WWII?


.

 

[kaz]

Yo ding dong, have you researched to find out what went on before Pearl Harbor?

.

I'm with you on the middle east, but both the Nazis and Japanese attacked us. And had we not joined the allies, we'd have been fighting them on our own. This is a cutting off your note to spite your face argument.

Again, what was going BEFORE Pearl Harbor?

Find out if goddamned FDR was SECRETLY fighting the Japs in Indochina.

Find out if FDR froze the Japs assets in the US BEFORE the attack?

Find out if FDR directed the oil companies not to sell petroleum products to the Japs?

Find out if FDR knew of the impending attack but PURPOSELY CHOSE NOT TO PROTECT PEARL HARBOR IN ORDER TO UNITE THE NATION IN HIS DETERMINATION TO JOIN WWII.

BTW, when where did Hitler attack the US BEFORE FDR joined WWII?


.

Obviously you spend a lot of time on conspiracy sites when you are not here.

As for the Japanese, what our government did does not remove our government's responsibility to protect the American people.

As for the Nazis, it's interesting how you know so much about what we did to the Japanese, even what we were just accused of doing, and you don't know about Nazi attacks on US shipping.

I want us out of other people's back yards, including the middle east. But apparently unlike you I am a proud American and when the US is attacked I want to let them find out what kind of life they led when we send them to meet St. Peter or the Devil...

 

[Desperado]

In case anyone doesn't know, Hitler's plan was to take over the WORLD.

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

 

[kaz]

In case anyone doesn't know, Hitler's plan was to take over the WORLD.

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

 

[Bumberclyde]

One positive: The war in Iraq brought CNN AWESOME ratings!

 

[zeke]

One positive: The war in Iraq brought CNN AWESOME ratings!

Oh, you're just thinking back to those "shock and awe" days.

Or the "Greet Us As Liberators" days.

Or the "Mission Accomplished" day.

CNN brought us the highlights.

We were so AWESOME.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

What an idiot!

A) I guess you are the type of person that takes bankruptcy all the time! Reneges on contracts, agreements and as a result NOT ONE person can ever trust you!
Point is There was an agreement Saddam signed that like YOU do all the time not give a shit and ignored the 1991 CEASE FIRE... dumb ass!
So unlike you most people like President Bush got very f...king tired of Saddam murdering people, starving children BUT of course idiots like you LOVED that!
So after these 32 democrat comments ENCOURAGING Bush to take action...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.


B) It was ten years ago this month, on February 4, 2002, that the CIA first used an unmanned Predator drone in a targeted killing.
A Brief History of Drones | The Nation

So if they weren't available what was the alternative dumb shit???

 

[Desperado]

In case anyone doesn't know, Hitler's plan was to take over the WORLD.

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Templar: I think his theory is if you don't fuel the fear of these forces, then you take away their thunder. Like the strategy in Benghazi, to blame it on an independent video so there is no public focus or fear of terrorists that gets the publicity.

If you say you can keep your doctors and health care, then people focus on that.

You just divert the public attention where you want it, and the rest becomes imaginary problems that aren't valid and thus don't exist.

I think this strategy could work well if done in reverse.

Tell everyone that the ACA is optional to follow, if you believe in it like a religion you are free to follow it. And if you don't, you cannot be legally forced to by any government entity.
Forcing people to pay for some national system that isn't proven yet, is like forcing a national religion on the public and requiring us to fund it. Even penalizing people for believing in funding health care other ways. If you believe in the Constitution and separation of federal from state powers, then you have equal religious freedom to fund and follow what you believe to be lawful alternatives instead.

The govt cannot require you to follow a religion or religious leader you do not believe in and hasn't been proven to be Constitutional.
Those who believe ACA is Constitutional and/or believe in Government to handle health care on a federal level
are like those who believe in one God for all people, but cannot penalize people who have the right to believe in other things and/or they choose to believe in the same God.
This belief or faith cannot be forced by government, by forcing people under regulations or penalties based on this faith and excluding equal freedom to believe in funding other options for health care.
Even if such belief is true or the best policy, it still cannot be forced by govt much less penalized by law for "not believing" or for "believing in something else."

Go set up your own health care alternative systems, invest there, deduct all business or charitable expenses from your taxes, and ask your local state leaders or legal bar associations for legal help to defend your free choice to fund alternatives to health care according to your Constitutional beliefs in "free choice" or states rights, which are protected by law by the First and Fourteenth Amendments as beliefs.

And ignore Obama and the ACA that are optional to follow or else they discriminate against and penalize you for your beliefs in free choice and states rights.
If they aren't valid in your mind as having authority, like these terrorists taking over, then they don't really exist.

This strategy seems to work for Obama, so why not use it on him!

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.

 

[MikeK]

We were never fighting for anything. That's why Obama followed Bush's withdrawal date and got us the fuck out.

Oh, and leaving our troops over in that shit hole doesn't show them respect. Quite the opposite.

Our treasure was spent and our troops wasted for the singular purpose of advancing the interests of the oil industry. We have an enormous embassy in Iraq, the biggest embassy in the world. Al Qaeda will someday attack that embassy in strength, and we will be forced to return in strength.

It's a matter of time. And we will not fully withdraw from there until those oil fields are sucked dry.

 

[emilynghiem]

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

 

[kaz]

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

LOL, but your accusation that neocons want to take over the world is not only not consistent with neocon but it's actually contradictory to the definition of neocon. And Obama may not have run as a neocon, but he has clearly reigned as one.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

What I mean by neocon is the definition of the word, it's a "new conservative." Neocons are:

- Big government loving, free spending liberals
- Believe in using the military to spread Democracy, or their version of it.

W and Obama are both neocons.

There is no other definition other than what people want to make up, and made up definitions are irrelevant.

And there is only one definition of crony capitalist, a crony capitalist is a type of socialist who favors government picking and propping up winners in the marketplace. It's socialism because it's central planning. The word "capitalist" is completely misleading since it's the opposite of capitalism where the market picks winners.

 

[BlindBoo]

You don't know what "neocon" means. BTW, Obama has been a consistent Neocon.

Hint: Neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

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

Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy: "Pseudo-Conservative": An Update on the Origins of the Term

"As far as my etymological researches are concerned "pseudo-conservative" may have first been used in a rather famous book, The Authoritarian Personality, written by Theodore Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford in 1950. The authors wrote that the pseudo-conservative "in the name of upholding traditional American values... and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aim at their abolition." I find it difficult to improve on that definition fifty-six years later. Our pseudo-conservatives of today are also fighting "more or less fictitious dangers" such as "Islamo-Fascism" and "International Terrorism" in the "name of upholding traditional American values", and in this very struggle are "consciously or unconsciously" threatening the abolition of these very American values."

 

[bendog]

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

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

Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy: "Pseudo-Conservative": An Update on the Origins of the Term

"As far as my etymological researches are concerned "pseudo-conservative" may have first been used in a rather famous book, The Authoritarian Personality, written by Theodore Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford in 1950. The authors wrote that the pseudo-conservative "in the name of upholding traditional American values... and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aim at their abolition." I find it difficult to improve on that definition fifty-six years later. Our pseudo-conservatives of today are also fighting "more or less fictitious dangers" such as "Islamo-Fascism" and "International Terrorism" in the "name of upholding traditional American values", and in this very struggle are "consciously or unconsciously" threatening the abolition of these very American values."

I don't really object to Irving Kristol's analysis, or to neoconservatism, until it comes to the use of force, on page 3 of the link.

The Neoconservative Persuasion | The Weekly Standard

Reagan/Thatcherism or neoliberalism justifies the use of force when one state attempts to prevent a second state from enjoying free trade with a consenting third state. Or, when one state seeks to obtain a monopoly on some commodity other states need to survive, because the monopolist state seeks to influence the political system in a state(s) or the international relations between other states.

The Saudis attempted this in the 70s, but they were coopted into investing in markets rather than destroying Israel.

NEOCONSERVATISM, as defined for the Project for a New American Century (which NOT coincidentally literally disappeared from the web about the time W cluskerfked in Iraq) argued that we shoud use our new found military monopoly to go out and secure necessary commodities, rather than depending upon market bases approaches of NEOLIBERALISM

EDIT, and while I don't like Obama, he is not that brand of neoconservative.