Are our troops dying for nothing?

[LynnTheDem]

Yes.

But it COULD be no.

bush lied our troops to invade & occupy a sovereign nation that hadn't been threatening anyone & wasn't a threat to anyone. For that, they have died and they will die for nothing.

And as long as soldiers' families and Americans in general refuse to face the reality, as long as they cling to the false belief that their loved ones are dead and dying to "protect America", then their loved ones will have died and will continue to die for absolutely nothing at all.

But IF Americans can force themselves to face the facts, that it was all lies and nothing but lies, a war of aggression, a war of CHOICE, an invasion & occupation for political gains, THEN they will speak out against this invasion & occupation; they will force the US government to bring our troops home; they will stop more troops from needlessly dying.

And hopefully Americans will finally learn this second time around the lesson that NONE of our soldiers are to be sent into a war of choice, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE for a politician, a PUBLIC SERVANT, to LIE this nation and our loved ones into a war, and that FULL AND OPEN DISCUSSION FROM ALL SIDES is NOT "treason"; it's our RESPONSIBILITY.

WE OWE IT TO OUR UNIFORMED AMERICAN CITIZENS TO HAVE FULL AND OPEN AND HONEST DISCUSSIONS WHEN IT'S A MATTER OF THEIR LIFE & DEATH. NOTHING LESS IS ACCEPTABLE. NOT EVER.

And THEN our fellow Americans who are dead and who will die in Iraq for a politicain's lies, THEN our soldiers will have died for SOMETHING; they will have died to save future American soldiers from dying for a politician's lies and political desires, in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Vietnam lesson didn't take; perhaps the Iraq lesson will.

FACE THE REALITY and STOP MORE DEATHS, and then our fallen will not have died in vain...or continue to believe in the comforting fantasy, while more American men, women & teens continue to die for nothing at all.

[theycanbiteme]

1. The question should really be...

do Americans give a shit that our troops are dying for nothing...?

[Herlong]

2. Are our troops dying for nothing?

no

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Booster]

7. Then answer this question: What are they dying for?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amber dog democrat]

10. Why do you say "no" ?

Just currious.

[0007]

12. junior lied and the troops died you figure it out, it isn't hard!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

4. No

They're dying to assure that Big Oil continues to control the flow of oil out of the ME. We've already privatized the Iraqi oil fields. That's why we can't have a look-see at Cheney's Energy Taskforce meetings and who attended. They had to divvy up the spoils before we invaded.

[LynnTheDem]

6. That's worse than for nothing.

Yep, control of the oil and preventing others (China) from getting it is what the invasion of Iraq is all about.

And still so many Americans flat out refuse to accept this, regardless how much very obvious proof there is.

[greendeerslayer]

5. Well no...

they are dying for the sake of imperial hubris.

[amber dog democrat]

8. They died pointlessly

I don't see how to state it otherwise. They are the victims of empirial schemes that serve powerful vested interests. Part of this has to be about oil. Part of it has to be about seeing how far totalitarian power can be imposed here and aborad .

Hubris, arrogance, greed and stupidity seem to be the dominate themes here.
I only wish there could be another Nuremburg Trial with the leaders of this administration in the dock with their lives at stake.

The sooner our empire collapses the better it is for the rest of the world. I am too idealistic for my own good - but this war is not being done in my name, nor am its beneficiary.

edited for spelling

[Catchawave]

9. I feel your pain....

..my husband's been going to VietNam Vets reunions for over 39 years now. So Sad. And NO, still not helping that era...:::sigh:::

[UTUSN]

11. Uhhhh-------------Yes. & Yet They Vote for Their Own Deaths n/t

[buddysmellgood]

14. That's a myth. The general military population votes much like the

general civilian population. Polls of the military oversample the brass.

[EVDebs]

15. What happened to the War Powers Act and this resolution to go

into Iraq in the first place ? I thought under War Powers that every six months funding and debate were to take place in order to prevent another "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution situation.

Section 5c authorizes Congress to remove the troops

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

And 'reporting' done 'periodically' is to advise Congress of the status of hostilities etc.

With Gen Frank's book stating that we'll be in Iraq for 5 years, and Sen McCain stating on CNN that we'll be in Iraq for 10 to 20 years, we the people and our Congressional representatives deserve an estimate on HOW LONG OUR TROOPS WILL BE IN IRAQ.

[quaoar]

17. No, they are not dying for nothing

No matter how the Iraq war turns out, our troops have not died in vain.

Any time a soldier sacrifices his life for his country it is a testament to duty and courage and honor, traits that are always in short supply. It makes no difference whether the war is righteous or horribly wrong. Those sacrifices should never be forgotten.

By the same token, those who never came back from Vietnam did not die in vain. They gave their lives for their America, not Nixon's.

[Poiuyt]

18. It makes me furious to hear people say

that our soldiers are fighting for America. They're fighting for Bush's political power!

[Lizzie Borden]

19. Yes.

They are dying for nothing.

[aikoaiko]

21. One could make the argument that they are dying for...

... Afghanistan and Iraq to governed by US friendly governments.

Once the taliban refused to hand over OBL, that gave Bushco the excuse to establish a nonjewish american strong hold in the middle east that (if successfully established) could pay off dividends, literally and metaphorically, in for the next century.


edited to add: this was supposed to be a response to the original post, not the one I attached this to.

[LynnTheDem]

23. The Taleban didn't refuse to hand OBL over.

And you're ok for your child or spouse or mother or dad or yourself to die to install a US-friendly government in someone else's country?

How about China deciding to install a China-friendly government in the USA? Would that be ok, too?

Just wondering.

[aikoaiko]

27. I didn't say it was a righteous invasion...

... even if it was for the reason I stated.

The orginator of the thread asked if they were dying for a reason and I posted what I thought the reason might be.

Maybe it was because I said it might payoff someway for the US. I didn't mean that to justify it, I just meant as the supporting reason.

Judging from your post #6, I thought you would have agreed with me.

edited to add: Of course I would not be happy with a China invasion for the same reason.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Thanks for answering!

I really was just wondering how you stood on the issue, honest. Coz a very interesting discussion could happen, I think;

I think there is a smidgen of "justification" there; China is our next #1 threat and if we prevent China's access to oil, then China isn't going to be much of a threat to us down the road. And IF bush had stated that as his reason -which I suspect really IS the real reason for his invasion of Iraq- then America could have had an open & honest discussion of the pros and cons of such an action.

I strongly suspect (hope?) that the vast majority of Americans would have said HELL NO...as it was, bush didn't even manage to convince a majority of Americans on invading for WMD, or not until after the bombs were dropping on Baghdad and America "rallied around the troops" as usual.

It wouldn't have been a moral thing to do...but a wee tiny part of me can see that were I in charge of the safety of this nation, and if I thought China was the next big threat to this nation, and that threat could be diminished or disappeared by controlling Iraq's oil...

But then we could have and we bloody well SHOULD BE developing non-oil alternatives and wean ourselves off this goo we're so addicted to. That wouldn't have caused the tens of thousands of US casualties or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties or the world hatred towards us.

But weaning us off oil wouldn't help diminish any threat from China. But on the other foot (I've already used all available hands, I think!) there are better ways of diminishing threats than by going around invading & occupying & genociding people.

Damn it SUCKS sometimes, not having that freeping rightwingnut black/white-only mentality! :D

[aikoaiko]

31. well written!!!

[Cheswick2.0]

20. Yes, they have given their lives for nothing

they have died to make the Military Industrial Complex and Big Oil richer than they already are.

[bloom]

22. yes

another letter in the paper today - about someone upset that people are out there protesting the war. As if the soldiers are actually defending our country.

Too bad our media sucks. Otherwise maybe they would have a clue.

I could write another letter - but these people will believe FAUX over me any day.

(I know that sounds really defeatist....) :(

[LynnTheDem]

26. Every American who knows the facts protests this invasion.

Only Americans who don't know the facts and/or just like other people to kill & be killed for the fun of it, support this invasion.

[ckramer]

24. Yes.

But at least BushCo got oil.

[Solly Mack]

25. I can't think of all those senseless and needless deaths

without my anger boiling over. I literally grind my teeth in anger.

[Gyre]

29. It is "no"

They're dying while engaged in stealing another country's natural resources. Used to be "the rooskies" did shit like that.

Gyre

[hollowdweller]

30. They are dying to make our country (and Iraq) LESS safe.

[Lexingtonian]

32. not for nothing but, sadly, not for much, either

It's a genuine recapitulation of Vietnam, in the country's smaller scale problem and later conflict with the Middle East relative to the misname Cold War.

Vietnam was a way of fighting Communism in the trenches, except it wasn't that, it was just fighting a stupid colonial war of independence on the wrong side in order to get away from Cold War anxiety and to pretend to be doing something.

Iraq is the same idea, with the same results. Run by roughly the same people- except Rumsfeld gets to play Kissinger's part this time, and Cheney gets to play McNamara's. (Maybe Rice gets to play Rummie 1974-75 and knock out Rumsfeld: that would be a poetic justice of extremely ironic proportions.) This war is run as a domestic politics of resentments about the Cold War fight in Vietnam, even, if you follow the symbolisms. We're up the to "declare victory and get out" phase, with under a year left in the game at the running rate of recapitulation of about 4:1. We set the Gulf of Tonkin resolution at the Senate vote of 2002, the Tet offensive at the massive increase in "insurgency" last fall, Nixon's reelection campaign at Bush's....

Personally, I hope the Administration recapitulates Watergate too.

But the poor shlubs getting wasted in Mosul and Tikrit and Fallujah and such, and in turn annihilating select bits of the urban poor of Iraq...they're dying because of a banal Messianic selfimportance and vanity of fools of various sorts that needs expression in acts of violence, fools mostly American and middle aged and white and 'Christian' and Republican-voting.

[gulliver]

33. More and more.

The bigger the failure this Iraq thing is, the more the troops who died in the invasion died for nothing. Right now, it looks like there is no chance of an America-friendly, independent democracy in Iraq. So the troops are "dying for" far less than we were all led to believe -- if not yet nothing.

The bigger question is how much "gratitude and respect" the surviving 99% are going to get. I've always thought they supported Bush because they expect their social chits to carry a lot of weight when they get back. You know, "I was in Iraq, ladies. Take a number."

I dunno. Did the Vietnam vets come back and get a lot of mileage out of being Vietnam vets? I think America had no problem sending her troops to Iraq (strangers, other people's kids, "what are we paying them for anyway?"). America is an asshole to its troops, and the Republicans are the worst offenders. They are typically the ones hiding back here trying to get dates with soldier's girlfriends... It's a form of trickle down.

I feel sorry for the troops over there, even the ones who think they want to be there. It's not going to be a historical success, and the "rah-rahs" will die down in a few years. Heck, look what the Republicans did to Kerry, and he had a chest full of medals.