What Were We Fighting For?

[bodecea]

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.

That country was not and is not ours, you know.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

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.

Yeah! Get out your foam fingers! USA! USA! USA!

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

Because our goals since WWII have not been total war, total defeat of the enemy and conquering of their nation. Nor did we go to total war footing in the US since WWII.

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.

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.

Because our goals since WWII have not been total war, total defeat of the enemy and conquering of their nation. Nor did we go to total war footing in the US since WWII.

Reason the US won WWII: They used nukes.

Reason the US hasn't won a war since WWII: They won't use nukes.

 

[ShawnChris13]

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.

Because our goals since WWII have not been total war, total defeat of the enemy and conquering of their nation. Nor did we go to total war footing in the US since WWII.

Reason the US won WWII: They used nukes.



Reason the US hasn't won a war since WWII: They won't use nukes.

Real reason we won WWII: we declared war.

Real reason we haven't won a war since: we haven't declared war.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

Is it not defeat when we pull out and the guys we were trying to keep out of power are in power?

Face it, we lost in viet nam because we never tried to win it. 58,000 americans and billions of dollars for nothing.

we kept the border in place in Korea, but the north remains a threat. Its not over, so we cannot claim victory.

We defeated Japan and Germany in WW2, because we were in it to win it.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

Because our goals since WWII have not been total war, total defeat of the enemy and conquering of their nation. Nor did we go to total war footing in the US since WWII.

Then we should not have been there at all. Thats the point.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Because our goals since WWII have not been total war, total defeat of the enemy and conquering of their nation. Nor did we go to total war footing in the US since WWII.

Reason the US won WWII: They used nukes.

Reason the US hasn't won a war since WWII: They won't use nukes.

We could have won in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan without nukes. Give the military a mission to destroy the government and rulers of a nation and we are very capable of doing that in a very short time with very few casualties on our side.

If we are not willing to kill a lot of the enemy, then we should not be involved.

 

[hangover]

What Were We Fighting For?

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

 

[Redfish]

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.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Haahahahhaahahahaaahhahaha

Oh your serious.....hahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahaha

We left because that was what the timeline outlined during the Bush Admin set us out to do. Iraq didnt want us their either and thus i really dont give a shit about Iraq and this waste of a time. The war was a waste of time. just like this opinion you have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You care more about looking out for the guy next to you than what is going to happen on the patch of real estate you happen to be on."

Yup.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The only battle the OP have ever seen was from behind a keyboard with his faggotty knights and shit

 

[Plasmaball]

maybe temp actually went down to the recruiting office?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 fuck 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.

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics?

No, it was motivated purely by refusal of Iraqi government to grant the US troops immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts.

Jesus, what planet you conservative types are living on?..

Earth? What alternate universe are you from?

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.