Can anybody tell me why we really went to war

[ericn1300]

in Iraq? Nobody I've talked to seems to know, other than Bush played on the emotions of 9-11 to achieve his personal goals. Check out the cost of war http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home and put in your own state to see what this unnecessary war is costing your community.

[KustmAce]

Very simple: Weapons of mass destruction...oh wait...No it was terrorists...oh wait...um...I don't remember...

I think it says in here somewhere:

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

Or here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature.../19/iraq_five/

Oh wait...no...definitely here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0713-01.htm

[2strokebloke]

It's simple really:

This is a brain, it thinks:


This is not a brain, it doesn't think:

[BNaylor]

Obviously the anti-war movement is ineffective today for whatever reasons. Or maybe it was the oil.

Likewise, can anyone tell me why we went to war in Vietnam? 58,000 KIA and 400,000 wounded. I still don't know the real reason why the politicians got us into it.

In today's dollars the Vietnam War which lasted at least 10 years costs more than the Iraq War, however, take note that the Iraq War budget and spending to date only makes up 1% of the GDP. See link below.

Yet the Iraq war has consumed less of the nation's gross domestic product than other pricey conflicts. The Iraq war's costs represented 1 percent of GDP in the peak year of the war. World War II, with a $4.1 trillion price tag in 2008 dollars, was nearly 36 percent of GDP and the Vietnam War was 2.3 percent of GDP in that wars' peak years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4296368.shtml

Obviously wars and national security is not cheap.


American Revolution: $1.8 billion; GDP figure not available

War of 1812: $1.2 billion; 2.2 percent

Civil War, Union: $45.2 billion; 11.3 percent

Civil War, Confederacy: $15.2 billion; GDP figure not available

World War I: $253 billion; 13.6 percent

World War II: $4.1 trillion; 35.8 percent

Korean War: $320 billion; 4.2 percent

Vietnam War: $686 billion; 2.3 percent

Gulf War: $96 billion; 0.3 percent

Iraq War: $648 billion; 1 percent

Afghanistan/Global war on terror: $171 billion; 0.3 percent

Post 9/11 domestic security: $33 billion; 0.1 percent

Post 9/11 operations: $859 billion; 1.2 percent

[2strokebloke]

We got into Vietnam because the French wanted our help, and the U.S. was still anti communist at that time so it seemed to make sense to help the French keep communists out of south Vietnam.

The real question is why we bothered to stay there for so long.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

We got into Vietnam because the French wanted our help, and the U.S. was still anti communist at that time so it seemed to make sense to help the French keep communists out of south Vietnam.

The real question is why we bothered to stay there for so long.

Obviously you or the historians have no real clue as to the real reasons just like the rest of us. The "dominoes effect" or theory as applied to Indo China and anti-communism is baloney. Sounds good for the naive. I don't buy those reason(s). One primary reason was the U.S. Industrial-Military complex, i.e. big business. The contracts back then with Bell-Textron alone were for 10 years. Probably the same reason we are in Iraq although there are other companies as major players.

So are you saying the U.S. is no longer anti-communist? Thats real funny because the last recent government security clearance questionnaire I filled out asked if I was ever or currently a member of the Communist Party. Unless you have been living on another planet we are still technically in a cold war with Russia and closely watch their military and review their war doctrine. We still have nukes pointed at them. Our military stills trains against symmetrical warfare in addition to counter-insurgency warfare. Speaking of Russia you don't hear much about or major criticism about their invasion of Georgia.

[2strokebloke]

The way we bend over for china, almost makes it seem like we're pro communist some times.

I mean obviously there is always economic or industrial incentive to back war, but in the case of Vietnam it was to help out the French.
If it were purely for the sake of the military-industrial complex, we could have jumped into Vietnam earlier than we did, since communists had occupied the northern half of vietnam for over a decade before the U.S. started sending people there in any appreciable numbers.
Even though the French did not officially have control over South Vietnam, a lot of French people were still involved in the government there, and a lot of industry was run by the French.

[ericn1300]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Obviously wars and national security is not cheap.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with "national security" until the war started producing even more terrorists.

[blazee]

It's simple.... power. The Iraq war is just an extension of the "War on Terror". George Bush is not the fool he appears to be, he is however a puppet, this entire thing was carefully orchestrated (including the 9/11 attacks), the men behind the curtain are making billions on this preplanned perpetual war. The goal is to 1) Gain money/power. 2) Gain control over more governments 3) Take away rights/liberties "for our protection" 4) Weaken our economy and destroy the value of our dollar all to make us vulnerable to the ultimate objective.... a New World Order. Wars are great for this because patriotism replaces common sense making it easy to slip anything by the population. Patriotism, Racism, Gay Bashing, Liberal Vs Conservative, Democrat Vs Republican, Religion, etc. are all ways to manipulate the ignorant into adopting the group mentality, and keep the people divided and weak. It doesn't matter which candidate gets elected or what party they are with, the overall agenda is the same. Abortion, Gun Control, and Gay Marriage are intentionally divisive, perpetual issues meant to make it appear as though the parties are against each other, in order to keep their sheep divided. If people were united and knew what was really going on they would attempt to use their constitutional right to overthrow a government that no longer served the people. I say attempt because measures have been taken to prevent that as well, FEMA has converted old schools, hospitals, and prisons all across the country in to concentration camps that have been authorized for use against American citizens. Any movement against the government will classify you as an "unlawful enemy combatant" which means they can do anything they want to you, because after being labeled you are no longer protected by the constitution or the Geneva Convention. To protect the "Continuity of Government", laws have been put in place through presidential directives (bypassing congress) that allows the president to gain complete control of all three branches of government in what he alone deems to be a state of emergency caused by threats that are foreign or domestic. Once he seizes control, Congress is not allowed to inquire/examine/know the reason for a period of 6 months. The directives allow for suspension of the constitution for all Americans, allows the government to round up American citizens into concentration camps, authorizes using Americans as slave labor, authorizes the government to seize all property/possessions, Seize all trains, planes, boats/ships, and cars on American soil, Seize all fuel, Seize all food.

Oh God, my tin foil cap just got a tear... that's enough for now, I've got to go make another one.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

The way we bend over for china, almost makes it seem like we're pro communist some times.

I think many would agree with that comment considering China is still Communist.

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I mean obviously there is always economic or industrial incentive to back war, but in the case of Vietnam it was to help out the French.
If it were purely for the sake of the military-industrial complex, we could have jumped into Vietnam earlier than we did, since communists had occupied the northern half of vietnam for over a decade before the U.S. started sending people there in any appreciable numbers.Even though the French did not officially have control over South Vietnam, a lot of French people were still involved in the government there, and a lot of industry was run by the French.

The history of Vietnam from 1950 and up to include U.S. involvement was very complex and there is no simple answer or reason. The main U.S. involvement and the escalation of the Vietnam War started in 1965 and went out of control until 1975 when Saigon fell. Technically the French left Vietnam in principle and in defeat not later than 1956. Anyways, substitute French with "Roman Catholic" and "John F. Kennedy" I would probably agree. The religious influence was a stronger factor than admitted. Diem was a wealthy devote Roman Catholic and a puppet of the U.S. administration. Even V.P. LBJ himself made a special trip to S. Vietnam in 1961. However, as usual the U.S. decided to back the wrong guy. Many of the people that fled from North to South were the same and supported the French so that exodus was welcomed. Note that the Catholic church had a lot of assets in Vietnam so go figure. The problem is the majority of the Vietnamese people were Buddhist.

Originally Posted by ericn1300

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with "national security" until the war started producing even more terrorists.

How do you know for sure? Until the final chapters of credible history books I don't know about that.

More terrorists? What proof do you have to support that unfounded assertion other than your self serving liberal anti-war position? Has the U.S. been attacked by any of these so called terrorists since 9/11? Last time I checked many of the would be terrorists (Hadjis) including Al Qaeda fighters were sucked into Iraq and killed or imprisoned. Although you'll probably never admit it the troop surge is working!!!!!!

You missed the last three parts below so I lumped it into one sentence. Looks like more money has been spent there and rightfully so.

Obviously wars and national security is not cheap.


American Revolution: $1.8 billion; GDP figure not available

War of 1812: $1.2 billion; 2.2 percent

Civil War, Union: $45.2 billion; 11.3 percent

Civil War, Confederacy: $15.2 billion; GDP figure not available

World War I: $253 billion; 13.6 percent

World War II: $4.1 trillion; 35.8 percent

Korean War: $320 billion; 4.2 percent

Vietnam War: $686 billion; 2.3 percent

Gulf War: $96 billion; 0.3 percent

Iraq War: $648 billion; 1 percent

Afghanistan/Global war on terror: $171 billion; 0.3 percent <-----

Post 9/11 domestic security: $33 billion; 0.1 percent <---------

Post 9/11 operations: $859 billion; 1.2 percent <--------

[BNaylor]

ericn1300,

A pic is worth a thousand words. I posted these two pics just for your edification. That is your man Obama with my brother in-law who is one of the US Marine Battalion Commanders (LT. COL) for the area visited. Those pics were taken during Obama's recent visit to Iraq. Ramadi, Iraq which is located in Anbar province - Sunni Triangle. Take note that Obama is not wearing any body armor or LBA gear.

Obviously I have more inside information than you do due to my military background so I can put my money where my mouth is. Also, I work with the US Army's Counter-Insurgency Program related to Iraq. However, you are entitled to your opinions and armchair quarterbacking within reason even though I disagree with you on hot button topics therefore will continue to weigh-in against you or others on most political topics posted.








opcorn:

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

I think many would agree with that comment considering China is still Communist.

So you're going to say that Russia is communist but China isn't?

[Scrapper]

i was in armed forses i think we needed tarket pratice. you no like on the job training.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

So you're going to say that Russia is communist but China isn't?

Technically we all know Russia is not supposed to be communist anymore but it is a socialistic state and basically just a revamped version of the Soviet Union. Putin's reforms are not really classified as democratic. But obviously they like capitalism now. Plus they still have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.

It looks like Putin has been smoking loco weed considering his recent propaganda.

Mr. Putin said in a CNN interview the United States had armed and trained the Georgian army and pushed it into conflict with Russia, and said he suspects the crisis was purposefully created to give an advantage for one of the U.S. candidates - who he did not identify.

The Putin remarks drew a swift response from the White House, where Press Secretary Dana Perino said the Russian leader's suggestion was patently false, and sounded irrational.

There were similar remarks from State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood, who said Moscow appears to be trying to shift blame for what it did in Georgia, and what it has not done -- in failing to heed terms of the French-brokered cease-fire.

"Any charges that the U.S. instigated this conflict are ludicrous," Wood said. "What we need to focus on is what Russia's done. Russia still occupies parts of Georgia and it's in violation of its obligations under the cease-fire agreement, and we want to see Russia comply with its obligations. And charges that the United States had anything to do with instigating this conflict, I mean as I said, they're just ludicrous."

http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-28-voa58.cfm

As of today there are only 5 recognized one-party communist countries:

People's Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos)
Socialist Republic of Vietnam

[blindeyed]

blazee.. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one realizes that