"I Guess Our Soldiers Died For Nothing, Then"

[What Would Jesus Do?]

After reviewing the great performance of companies like Lockeed Martin and Boeing, Keiser quips "so I guess our soldiers all got some free stock?" After his guest demurred, Keiser said "I guess our soldiers died for nothing, then."

Did they die for nothing?

If you disagree, what do you think they died for, and was it worth it?

 

[aflachawk]

After reviewing the great performance of companies like Lockeed Martin and Boeing, Keiser quips "so I guess our soldiers all got some free stock?" After his guest demurred, Keiser said "I guess our soldiers died for nothing, then."

Did they die for nothing?

If you disagree, what do you think they died for, and was it worth it?

Since we did not keep a small force there and the hard gains were lost... Yes we did.

 

[HallofFame]

Well gas prices have been down the last year or two so we got that going for us.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Since we did not keep a small force there and the hard gains were lost... Yes we did.

So how many soldiers would we have had to keep there to prevent what is happening?

10,000?

50,000?

100,000?

Is that what you are advocating?

And should we have done that even if the Iraq government said "no"? As they did. We would then be an occupation army. Again.

How many of those soldiers would be dead by now? Is that what you think is better?

Suppose we left enough troops to keep the peace - more or less. And suppose only 200 or 300 of them are killed each year. Would that be a "win"?

Would that mean those who died and those who will continue to die died for a GOOD REASON?

Please explain how that works.

 

[SSG T]

I highly suggest everyone read Eisenhower's Farewell Address and his final State of the Union Address and see if anything he said 50+ years ago has come true. I think you'll find that great many of the things he warned us against have, in fact, happened. And happened for the betterment of defense contractors, politicians and retired officers/senior enlisted and for the detriment of the military as a whole.

Does it have to do with Soldiers (and Marines, Airmen and Sailors) lives being wasted? Maybe not directly. Does it have to do with the bottom lines of defense contractors being considered more important than those lives. Absolutely.

I'm all for having a very well armed, trained and supplied military. I'm not all for wasting billions of dollars annually because a retired Colonel, General or former politician is sitting on the board of a major defense contractor and has an in with a sitting Senator or Congressman and can tug his ear in an effort to benefit his new company. When we have better, more advanced weapon systems than any potential adversary will have in my lifetime, why do we continually let people searching for a retirement job convince Senate and House committees and high ranking DOD personnel convince us that we need the next best thing? We don't.

Go spend that money fixing the crappy roads I keep driving over on the way to work, fixing the crappy power transmission lines, give us better phone and internet systems and better choices for renewable energy.

 

[Nat Algren]

Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Hermann Goering

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Hermann Goering

This is a long-recognized principle that seems to get lost when the war - and the propaganda supporting the war - shuts down people's brains.

The socialists and anarchists prior to WWI were convinced war couldn't be sustained. They reasoned that the farmers and factory workers and store clerks in one country would recognize that they had a lot more in common with the farmers, factory workers and store clerks in a neighboring nations than with the ruling classes that were sending them to war.

And, in fact they did. The stories of soldiers shooting to miss were rampant. Ditto the spontaneous cease fires when "enemies" would cross lines or meet in the middle to celebrate holidays. These, of course were quickly punished by the elites.

 

[Gimmered]

After reviewing the great performance of companies like Lockeed Martin and Boeing, Keiser quips "so I guess our soldiers all got some free stock?" After his guest demurred, Keiser said "I guess our soldiers died for nothing, then."

Did they die for nothing?

If you disagree, what do you think they died for, and was it worth it?

I felt they would when we were building the case to go to war. Still feel that way now.

 

[h-hawk]

The socialists and anarchists prior to WWI were convinced war couldn't be sustained. They reasoned that the farmers and factory workers and store clerks in one country would recognize that they had a lot more in common with the farmers, factory workers and store clerks in a neighboring nations than with the ruling classes that were sending them to war.

And, in fact they did. The stories of soldiers shooting to miss were rampant. Ditto the spontaneous cease fires when "enemies" would cross lines or meet in the middle to celebrate holidays. These, of course were quickly punished by the elites.

I think this is wishful thinking on the part of those Socialists. There were some instances of fraternization during WWI with the most famous Christmas incident happening very early in the war when the participants were still thinking of the war as a glorious game. It appears even this event was greatly exaggerated i.e. a soccer game being played between the two sides is still debated.
While there are always instances of quiet zones in combat it probably had nothing to do with relating to farmers or clerks on the other side, but with one's own self preservation - "don't shoot at me and I won't shoot at you". The feeling seemed to be If we are not in an operational area why should I risk my life.

Inexperienced soldiers are often too afraid to even fire their weapons and when they do fire, the tendency is to fire high and duck as quickly as possible. Analysis of US troops in WWII is very controversial but demonstrated this surprising fact. Many could not fire their weapons at all during combat, apparently due to being overwhelmed by the situation. This is what led to the concept of training featuring shooting at pop up human outline targets and not the traditional bulls-eye. It is also said to have brought about the change from individual firing to massive suppressing fire.

 

[aflachawk]

So how many soldiers would we have had to keep there to prevent what is happening?

10,000?

50,000?

100,000?

Is that what you are advocating?

And should we have done that even if the Iraq government said "no"? As they did. We would then be an occupation army. Again.

How many of those soldiers would be dead by now? Is that what you think is better?

Suppose we left enough troops to keep the peace - more or less. And suppose only 200 or 300 of them are killed each year. Would that be a "win"?

Would that mean those who died and those who will continue to die died for a GOOD REASON?

Please explain how that works.

This much we know for sure. BHO said himself we left and Iraq was a stable country(and it stayed that way for a couple years)I believe the Military advocated for a force of 10-12K. If BHO would have pushed I believe the SOFA would have been granted. The problem was after we left we had zero leverage over the leader and he purged all the Sunni from the government and military leader ship, thereby giving the Sunni population no voice and they turned a bit to ISIS as a way to protect them selves. from a government that was increasingly being controlled by Iran As far as your suppositions about 200-300 dead annually that would never had happened. Our forces would not have been the tip of spear rather the hand behind the Iraqi armed forces that helped them succeed. Thats what we do in Europe and Korea and other places around the world and you almost never hear of many killed. We also know for certain this policy(which you and BHO are in favor of) is not working. Yet you and him are all in favor of it. Thats whats really puzzling.

 

[Arbitr8]

The way Barack Hussein Obama turned tail and abandoned all that we had accomplished in Iraq he makes it feel like that.

However they did not die in vain their President abandoned them,

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

I highly suggest everyone read Eisenhower's Farewell Address and his final State of the Union Address and see if anything he said 50+ years ago has come true. I think you'll find that great many of the things he warned us against have, in fact, happened. And happened for the betterment of defense contractors, politicians and retired officers/senior enlisted and for the detriment of the military as a whole.

Does it have to do with Soldiers (and Marines, Airmen and Sailors) lives being wasted? Maybe not directly. Does it have to do with the bottom lines of defense contractors being considered more important than those lives. Absolutely.

I'm all for having a very well armed, trained and supplied military. I'm not all for wasting billions of dollars annually because a retired Colonel, General or former politician is sitting on the board of a major defense contractor and has an in with a sitting Senator or Congressman and can tug his ear in an effort to benefit his new company. When we have better, more advanced weapon systems than any potential adversary will have in my lifetime, why do we continually let people searching for a retirement job convince Senate and House committees and high ranking DOD personnel convince us that we need the next best thing? We don't.

Go spend that money fixing the crappy roads I keep driving over on the way to work, fixing the crappy power transmission lines, give us better phone and internet systems and better choices for renewable energy.

That speech is easily one of the most important speeches to ever grace our country. It should be listened to by every American citizen at least once.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

This much we know for sure. BHO said himself we left and Iraq was a stable country(and it stayed that way for a couple years)I believe the Military advocated for a force of 10-12K. If BHO would have pushed I believe the SOFA would have been granted. The problem was after we left we had zero leverage over the leader and he purged all the Sunni from the government and military leader ship, thereby giving the Sunni population no voice and they turned a bit to ISIS as a way to protect them selves. from a government that was increasingly being controlled by Iran As far as your suppositions about 200-300 dead annually that would never had happened. Our forces would not have been the tip of spear rather the hand behind the Iraqi armed forces that helped them succeed. Thats what we do in Europe and Korea and other places around the world and you almost never hear of many killed. We also know for certain this policy(which you and BHO are in favor of) is not working. Yet you and him are all in favor of it. Thats whats really puzzling.

Then go fight then. Simple as that, you're that worried about it, then you and yours go and fight it then.

 

[moral_victory]

I highly suggest everyone read Eisenhower's Farewell Address and his final State of the Union Address and see if anything he said 50+ years ago has come true. I think you'll find that great many of the things he warned us against have, in fact, happened. And happened for the betterment of defense contractors, politicians and retired officers/senior enlisted and for the detriment of the military as a whole.

I have a lot of respect for Eisenhower. Another quote of his in a letter to his brother

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This much we know for sure. BHO said himself we left and Iraq was a stable country(and it stayed that way for a couple years)I believe the Military advocated for a force of 10-12K. If BHO would have pushed I believe the SOFA would have been granted. The problem was after we left we had zero leverage over the leader and he purged all the Sunni from the government and military leader ship, thereby giving the Sunni population no voice and they turned a bit to ISIS as a way to protect them selves. from a government that was increasingly being controlled by Iran As far as your suppositions about 200-300 dead annually that would never had happened. Our forces would not have been the tip of spear rather the hand behind the Iraqi armed forces that helped them succeed. Thats what we do in Europe and Korea and other places around the world and you almost never hear of many killed. We also know for certain this policy(which you and BHO are in favor of) is not working. Yet you and him are all in favor of it. Thats whats really puzzling.

A lot of "I believe this" and "I believe that" in yours and other comments.

Bush couldn't get a SOFA on our terms. Obama couldn't get a SOFA on our terms. We could have gotten a SOFA on their terms. Maybe that would have been smart, but 2 administrations and our military wouldn't accept that. The main stumbling block, you will remember, is that Iraq wouldn't grant US troops immunity from being tried under Iraq's laws.

If you disagree with Bush, Obama and the military on this, I'd love to hear the argument. But all I've ever heard from you and all but 1 GOP politician is this idea that we could have gotten the SOFA we wanted. Somehow. No facts ever supplied.

Note that we couldn't get it - and were going to completely pull out of Afghanistan, too - until we finally got an acceptable (i.e., compliant) government elected.

The only GOP politician who has said something different is McCain. He says that he single-handedly negotiated a deal with the Maliki government but that Obama wouldn't listen to him. Strangely, I've never heard anyone back him up on that. But in other comments, even McCain is only lamenting that we didn't leave a "reserve force" in Iraq. And I just don't think there's any reason to think a mere reserve force would have kept ISIS from springing up. At best we would have had forces close by to throw at this little-understood foe.

But again, I'd be glad for you - or anyone - to explain to me HOW a reserve force in Iraq would have made a difference.

BTW, saying that our troops aren't dying in Germany or S.Korea is hardly a good argument for thinking they wouldn't have been targets in Iraq. Unless maybe they stayed hunkered inside the Green Zone. (Is there still a Green Zone?) But if they were hunkered in the Green Zone, how does their presence prevent ISIS?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

A lot of "I believe this" and "I believe that" in yours and other comments.

Bush couldn't get a SOFA on our terms. Obama couldn't get a SOFA on our terms. We could have gotten a SOFA on their terms. Maybe that would have been smart, but 2 administrations and our military wouldn't accept that. The main stumbling block, you will remember, is that Iraq wouldn't grant US troops immunity from being tried under Iraq's laws.

If you disagree with Bush, Obama and the military on this, I'd love to hear the argument. But all I've ever heard from you and all but 1 GOP politician is this idea that we could have gotten the SOFA we wanted. Somehow. No facts ever supplied.

Note that we couldn't get it - and were going to completely pull out of Afghanistan, too - until we finally got an acceptable (i.e., compliant) government elected.

The only GOP politician who has said something different is McCain. He says that he single-handedly negotiated a deal with the Maliki government but that Obama wouldn't listen to him. Strangely, I've never heard anyone back him up on that. But in other comments, even McCain is only lamenting that we didn't leave a "reserve force" in Iraq. And I just don't think there's any reason to think a mere reserve force would have kept ISIS from springing up. At best we would have had forces close by to throw at this little-understood foe.

But again, I'd be glad for you - or anyone - to explain to me HOW a reserve force in Iraq would have made a difference.

BTW, saying that our troops aren't dying in Germany or S.Korea is hardly a good argument for thinking they wouldn't have been targets in Iraq. Unless maybe they stayed hunkered inside the Green Zone. (Is there still a Green Zone?) But if they were hunkered in the Green Zone, how does their presence prevent ISIS?

There are no absolutes but if a acceptable SOFA agreement could have been reached a residual force of 10-12K with air assets could have provided the "backbone" for the Iraqi security forces. It's up for debate though as it's a hypothetical.

When I left Iraq in 2010 things were calming down quite a bit...

I think a reasonable argument can be made that ISIS wouldn't have made the gains they have in Iraq if air assets had been called in immediately.

 

[thewop]

Simply put, they died for their country. My brother-in-law is a Major in the Army, and he's in Iraq for the 5th time right now. He holds a personal belief that it's his duty to serve our country, and he took that pledge 13 years ago when he joined. He knows he doesn't personally get to decide what his mission is or where he's sent next. He doesn't like being in Iraq any more under Obama than he did under Bush, but is willing to give it his all because that's what his country has called him to do, and he therefore accepts that responsibility.

I will say that from his first-4th tours, he felt we did make a big difference for the positive, and that a good percentage of the population were appreciative of what we'd done for them. He was very worried that pulling troops out would not end well, as he was training Iraqi troops directly, and felt in no uncertain terms that they weren't really ready to hold strong alone. It'll be interesting to hear his take on how it went this time.

While to most of us, we can stand back and ask "what was in it for us?" and say things like "those soldiers died for nothing!", the soldiers are simply doing what their country has asked them to do, or more specifically the representatives of our country, who were elected by us, have asked them to do. So when they fight, they fight for our country, and when they die, they die for our country too.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Simply put, they died for their country. My brother-in-law is a Major in the Army, and he's in Iraq for the 5th time right now. He holds a personal belief that it's his duty to serve our country, and he took that pledge 13 years ago when he joined. He knows he doesn't personally get to decide what his mission is or where he's sent next. He doesn't like being in Iraq any more under Obama than he did under Bush, but is willing to give it his all because that's what his country has called him to do, and he therefore accepts that responsibility.

I will say that from his first-4th tours, he felt we did make a big difference for the positive, and that a good percentage of the population were appreciative of what we'd done for them. He was very worried that pulling troops out would not end well, as he was training Iraqi troops directly, and felt in no uncertain terms that they weren't really ready to hold strong alone. It'll be interesting to hear his take on how it went this time.

While to most of us, we can stand back and ask "what was in it for us?" and say things like "those soldiers died for nothing!", the soldiers are simply doing what their country has asked them to do, or more specifically the representatives of our country, who were elected by us, have asked them to do. So when they fight, they fight for our country, and when they die, they die for our country too.

Here's the thing though, his country didn't ask him to go do this. The #$#$ in DC did. Many of those #$#$# up in DC are traitors to this country and a bunch of war hawks just looking to play god. Your brother-in-law, I'm sure he's a good man, but he's ultimately following the orders from men who have never laced up their boots, and wouldn't know a thing about the hardship and sacrifice many of these people have to make. These mother$#$'s have never been through boot, went through the training involved, the deployments, the lost time with family, seen their comrades die, dealt with being in the military period.
THAT is why I have such a problem with these wars. Never mind the fact that they are a very obvious play for power, once you understand what happens with these things.
Keep in mind that a lot of these decisions come from outside our elected officials. The Council on Foreign relations is HUGE when discussing our foreign policy as is the Trilateral Commission.
These are very real organizations that include members outside government and outside our country.
If you want to know where our foreign policy is eventually going to go, pay attention to their press conferences and what their members have to say.
Every soldier has the right to question why he's being made to do what he's doing.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Simply put, they died for their country. My brother-in-law is a Major in the Army, and he's in Iraq for the 5th time right now. He holds a personal belief that it's his duty to serve our country, and he took that pledge 13 years ago when he joined. He knows he doesn't personally get to decide what his mission is or where he's sent next. He doesn't like being in Iraq any more under Obama than he did under Bush, but is willing to give it his all because that's what his country has called him to do, and he therefore accepts that responsibility.

I will say that from his first-4th tours, he felt we did make a big difference for the positive, and that a good percentage of the population were appreciative of what we'd done for them. He was very worried that pulling troops out would not end well, as he was training Iraqi troops directly, and felt in no uncertain terms that they weren't really ready to hold strong alone. It'll be interesting to hear his take on how it went this time.

While to most of us, we can stand back and ask "what was in it for us?" and say things like "those soldiers died for nothing!", the soldiers are simply doing what their country has asked them to do, or more specifically the representatives of our country, who were elected by us, have asked them to do. So when they fight, they fight for our country, and when they die, they die for our country too.

I praise your brother-in-law for his service, but no one should be sent to Iraq five times,

 

[naturalmwa]

I feel like I'm missing an important part of this story. What are we talking about? Did we have a naval battle recently?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Profits before people. What's wrong with that?

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...#q=creedence clearwater revival fortunate son

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I have a lot of respect for Eisenhower. Another quote of his in a letter to his brother

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

One of the last Republicans worthy of the name.

 

[strummingram]

Read "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler.

Did they die for "nothing?" Define nothing. Did they die for a lie? Every, single, time.

My Dad died of Agent Orange cancer years after his exposure to it so that DuPont and Bell Helicopters and who-knows-who-else could make a killing from the Vietnam War. Thinking he was "saving the Vietamese, and the USA, from Communism." Neither was true, but who cares. Hundreds of thousands of vets die from its effects all the time. Not to mention the loss of life and sanity during the years it was fought. Not to mention the innocent people that were killed. In retrospect, we all know that war was fought based on a lie. It should be easy to accept that ALL OF THEM ARE! Not so much, unfortunately.

War is the health of the State.

The sad part, to me, is the fact that with every new generation, there is a fresh batch of young men (or women) who allow themselves to be lied to. Maybe they don't care, and know it's BS, but wanna pretend that it's really for "Freedom and Justice and the American Way."

We- citizens of America- are citizens of one of the most insidious empires in human history. The truth of the crimes it commits are hidden and screened by euphemistic language, propaganda, and just general bullshit. But, as Natural says: "At least we get nice things." Souled-out all the way.

 

[Run&Blade]

War sucks, I wouldn't send anybody in harms way unless the United States was in serious danger.


Carpet bombing terrorist targets and getting off foreign oil should have been the response to 9-11. Take the gloves off when bombing. If civilians get killed maybe they would quit harboring thugs.

Cutting ties to Saudis Arabia and securing our borders would also be things I would have done.