the real reason our troops are in iraq and afganistan

Published on May 19, 2007 By danielost In War on Terror

our troops are not there for oil or for the people of iraq or afganistan

they are there for us. to make the world safer for you and me. to make it possible for people like the col. and sean to say that they are there becouse the president or the vice president or whomever to say that they are dieing for nothing.

the troops are there and dieing so that we can go to the grocery store.
so that we can go to the movies, the bars, or where ever when ever we want to go.

i know that you people will tell me that they are there becouse the president sent them there and that is true. but they joined the army knowing that they might be called to go to war. and they reason why they joined is so that if necassary they could protect us from the bad guys.

SO SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OR WHOMEVER BUT STOP SAYING THE TROOPS ARE DIEING FOR NOTHING. THAT GOES FOR THE IDIOT COL. GENE since he is supposed to have been a col. he should know better than that.

so go ahead idiot col. and almost idiot sean now tell me how bad i am for supporting the troops.

Comments (Page 3)

ThinkAloud

on May 21, 2007

Our troops are there because of oil. That's why our gasoline prices are so low.

true. unfortunately we did not achieve even that. the trouble we started made it worse. so at this point we losing troops, treasure and also jeopardizing the stability of the oil market for us and for the whole world. how is that for a dumb adventure?

ThinkAloud

on May 21, 2007

you do not have to support the president in order to support the troops

but you do have to stop telling the troops that they are worthless becouse of the president

i cant beleive that you are that stupid.

if your brother is a bully sending his kids to a useless fight, would you cheer the kids or tell your brother to stop sending them and call them back?

Our Troops CAN NEVER be worthless. The mission they are on CAN BE. and Now it is worthless because the stupidity of their CIC, the MISSION not the Troops is worthless you bird brain. you got that?

danielost

on May 22, 2007

if your brother is a bully sending his kids to a useless fight, would you cheer the kids or tell your brother to stop sending them and call them back?

Our Troops CAN NEVER be worthless. The mission they are on CAN BE. and Now it is worthless because the stupidity of their CIC, the MISSION not the Troops is worthless you bird brain. you got that?

so you would punish the kids for what the father did

the mission was to get rid of a hitler want to be

danielost

on May 22, 2007

so you would punish the kids for what the father did

the mission was to get rid of a hitler want to be

call the kids child killer, worthless becouse you think they are fighting for oil

it doesn't matter to them that the president went there for oil

they went there to protect little idiots like you

do you think for a secound that if they thought it was for oil they would have gone so willingly no they wouldn't have

at least you would here a lot more moaning about it

so call me all the names you want to but it doesn't change the facts

Rightwinger

on May 22, 2007

hate that you dismiss the validity of my argument so quickly. Go pick up The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich. Not that it will open your narrow mind, but you should read it anyway.

---Sancho

Sancho, I hear that argument all the time; I've read it, heard it and absorbed it. I just don't agree with it. Every time we flex our muscles or expands our influence, for whatever reason, it's never a good thing. It's "imperialistic", or "exploitative" or some other hysterical, ridiculous adjective. The hysterical, peacenik Left sees us good, noble Americans as some kind of Klingon-like warrior race that gets off on conquest and battle; nothing could be farther from the truth.

Oh, and one more thing, rightwinger - how the hell does me being a "lefty" (which, let's face it, I'm really not all that much) make me a communist totalitarian and a traitor?

By your logic, you're a fascist, nazi traitor yourself.

Go suck a goat, partisan hack.

Sorry. That's how I see it.

---Sancho

Okay, maybe you're not a traitor---nah, you are.....let's face it; virtually every argument I've ever read from you comes from that direction. Problem is, as is addressed by Ann Coulter in a book that I found refreshing---it finally validated observations I'd made for years---the Left freely supports anti-American militarism and subterfuge, but undermines and sniffs disapprovingly at anything pro-American.
Hell, the "Peace Democrats (Copperheads)" even worked hard to undermine the "tyrant" Lincoln's "dictatorial" efforts to win the Civil War. They kept saying that the war was "unwinnable"; they kept making their own, back channel overtures to the Confederacy, trying to sue for peace, and even took bribes from them. Guess old habits (and rhetoric) die hard, huh? We won that one, despite Democrat treachery, and we will this one, too.
You go, and pick up "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" by Coulter. (RW cups an ear) Yeah, I can hear you laughing from here; that's okay, that was the same response I had to your suggestion. I know you probably won't, and you know I probably won't; it's not in line with our personal biases. Let me ask you bluntly----do you want our side to win this war, or should we just give up and withdraw? Which is it for you? See, if we do that, the terrorist's butchery will soon be coming to a Wal-Mart, a movie theater, restaurant, ballpark or mall near you. But that's okay----when it does, you can just blame "Emperor" Bush's "failed policy" that stirred up "Arab hatred for America", resulting in the terrorism and death at home. Just ignore the fact that before our withdrawal, there was none. You know you would. You can also ignore the fact that it was Jimmy carter who facilitated the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, and Bill Clinton, who all but ignored it for eight years, leaving the "shitstorm" for Bush. You remember that shitstorm, right? The 90s---Clinton doing right next to nothing while terrorists pretty much did whatever they wanted? The serious concern and hand-wringing over the overwhelming intelligence revealing Saddam's WMD programs that prompted a move, in 1998, to make his removal an official policy of the Clinton Administration and the American government? The wishing and hoping for someone who would actually have the balls to do it? I know, I know....the liberal MSM ignores uncomfortable history, so you can just forget about it. I guess it only counts when Democrats have balls....but they so rarely show them; and when they do, they don't really work all that well.
See, I want us out of there, too; I want the troops home, safe and sound. What I DON'T want, though, is an Iraq run by Iran and/or Syria, backed up by al-Qaeda and training Hamas and all the other crazy Jihadist groups out there, who want very, very badly to destroy America and Israel. That's what I want; I want America to win. But see, typically of the political Left, the Defeatocrats do everything they can to keep that from happening; if we win, it would be a good thing for America, and that's just not a good thing, is it?

Let me tell you something, folks....something that it seems many of you are to freaking blind to see: we're fighting evil here. Real, violent evil and chaos; not the kind of what you accuse America. Ahmedinejhad--or however you spell it---has called for "a world without America"---he smiles to the UN, but wants to destroy us, and Western Civ with us. I don't know, maybe some of you might like actually that----after all, we're all such warmongers and bullies---but I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to live in a world without America and its inherent goodness, its spirit, its strength and its wealth. I support the troops and I support the war; I support American interests in the world. I support the further existence of Western Civilization. Yeah, I'm a partisan, but in a good way, and I think we should nuke their asses and get it over with, before they do it to us. Sorry if that offends the delicate sensibilities of some here, but oh well....if I didn't answer everything here that needed answered, once again, sorry.

drmiler

on May 22, 2007

In turn, Bush wants to keep this shitstorm going so that someone else can clean up his mess when the Democrat gets elected in 2008 . . .

The way the polls are looking right now....? I wouldn't bet my life on that.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 22, 2007

In turn, Bush wants to keep this shitstorm going so that someone else can clean up his mess when the Democrat gets elected in 2008

he stated that 2 years ago (aprox) ...ya'll didn't believe him?

only the people of this nation can bring our troops, who have served so honorably, home to defend our nation. the president has no desire to do it and the congress, despite their claims last fall, obviously don't have the guts to what is necessary.

danielost

on May 22, 2007

the democrats do not want anything to happen until next october for the election.

haven't you figured this out. the democrats are doing whatever it takes to get the whitehouse.

did anyone look at that bbc report that i gave above.

they state in their opening that everything in iraq is turning bad. but when you look at all of their tables the numbers tell us that the iraqi people, that would be the non government part, think things are improving. yes some think things are worse. but more think it is better today than with saddam. that means we are winning in iraq.

with this kind of fighting you can't win with force, unfortinatly you can't stop using it either, you have to win the hearts of the people and it seems that we are. but you won't hear that from the liberal media, this includes the bbc.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 22, 2007

but when you look at all of their tables the numbers tell us that the iraqi people, that would be the non government part, think things are improving. yes some think things are worse. but more think it is better today than with saddam. that means we are winning in iraq.

wrong...they want us out...WWW Link

drmiler

on May 22, 2007

I can find just as many that say the exact opposite. You do realize of course that the Washington Post is one of the most self-proclaimed leftist papers in the US?

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 22, 2007

I can find just as many that say the exact opposite. You do realize of course that the Washington Post is one of the most self-proclaimed leftist papers in the US?

blah, blah, blah...the ol "liberal media" cry.

show me where they "self-proclaimed" their liberalness.

danielost

on May 22, 2007

my point was and is that the bbc said the samething that the your link did

but when you look at their charts the numbers don't show what they are saying

CharlesCS

on May 22, 2007

I second LW.

danielost

on May 22, 2007

third

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!