Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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.
W committed the nation to allowing the Iraqies to define the govt they wanted. They have done so. Mission accomplished
The elected government of Iraq asked our military forces to leave
We left......anything that happens after we leave is Iraqs problem
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.
Anyone that joins the US Military at this point is a sucker.
Reason the US won WWII: They used nukes.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 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.
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 FUCKING 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 fuck home. Your little comparisons of games and houses can't even begin to compare to people losing their fucking lives.
If you want Iraq to be secure so damn bad, go there your fucking 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).
It is not stupid, and it's not a fiasco. YOU are stupid, and your post is a fiasco. See Post # 14.Yes, you are correct. True Libertarians also warned against it.I am sure you meant to say "liberals" and Libertarians were correct, once again.
.
Many conservatives were opposed to the stupid Iraq war, you are just lying pretending that all republicans and conservatives supported that fiasco.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When they put a nuclear warhead right into the top of your head, will you concede "they" are your enemies ?
Gee, I come from a military family too. Better than that, I WAS IN THE MILITARY YOU FUCKING 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 fuck home. Your little comparisons of games and houses can't even begin to compare to people losing their fucking lives.
If you want Iraq to be secure so damn bad, go there your fucking 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).
You live in a fucking comic book.
Out of the countries US Gov has fought, US Gov is the only one with nukes...
Out of the countries US Gov has fought, US Gov is the only one with nukes...
Yeah. SO ?
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.
This post is hilarious!
Speak for yourself, no damn way you could get me to fight the enemies of US Gov, they ain't my enemies.
When they put a nuclear warhead right into the top of your head, will you concede "they" are your enemies ?
If someone points a nuke at my head, I guess they are my enemy. No one has done that, lol.
Out of the countries US Gov has fought, US Gov is the only one with nukes...
Yeah. SO ?
You said these non-specific enemies of US GOV that should supposedly be my enemies are pointing nukes at my head. US GOV hasn't fought anyone with nukes so that is a bogus statement.
When they put a nuclear warhead right into the top of your head, will you concede "they" are your enemies ?
If someone points a nuke at my head, I guess they are my enemy. No one has done that, lol.
Yes they have. You're just too ignorant to know about it.
WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian
