Thread: Why We Fight

3 Why.We.Fight
<LI class="bundle grey" style="DISPLAY: none">06.feature.length



This is an excellent, in-depth, balanced look at America's foreign policy and the war business since WW2. This is not a party hackjob. The likes of John McCain, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Dwight Eisenhower are prominently interviewed and featured.



This Canadian documentary is as good as it gets, and if you have an attention span that works for longer than 15 minutes, this is a cant miss video on the military-industrial complex, no matter your political stripes.

Why We Fight
3 Why.We.Fight
<LI class="bundle grey" style="DISPLAY: none">06.feature.length



This is an excellent, in-depth, balanced look at America's foreign policy and the war business since WW2. This is not a party hackjob. The likes of John McCain, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Dwight Eisenhower are prominently interviewed and featured.



This Canadian documentary is as good as it gets, and if you have an attention span that works for longer than 15 minutes, this is a cant miss video on the military-industrial complex, no matter your political stripes.

It depends on which volume you are watching for instance the one that concentrates on American/Canadian involvement is heavily biased and filled with allied propoganda.

The author puts forth the question "why we fight" and proceeds to explain the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia as "the start of world war 2" and consequently one of the reasons "why we fight".

What the author neglets to mention is that these events took place before the war (and in the case of Manchuria during the early 30's). If these truly were reasons to fight the fight would have taken place then.

As I suspect these films were put out to sell the war to an ever increasing and skeptical public.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Marxist

It depends on which volume you are watching for instance the one that concentrates on American/Canadian involvement is heavily biased and filled with allied propoganda.

The author puts forth the question "why we fight" and proceeds to explain the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia as "the start of world war 2" and consequently one of the reasons "why we fight".

What the author neglets to mention is that these events took place before the war (and in the case of Manchuria during the early 30's). If these truly were reasons to fight the fight would have taken place then.

As I suspect these films were put out to sell the war to an ever increasing and skeptical public.

Are we watching the same thing? All the WWF Ive seen seems to be produced in an antiwar fashion, although they present the prowar crowd's argument as well. The link I provided centers mainly on US/Middle East involvement since WW2 and Vietnam, and looks very negatively on our actions around the globe in the name of "Freedom" the last 60 years.

OOPS......

You are thinking of the original propaganda films from the 40's and 50's produced by the pentagon I think. This WWF is named the same intentionally, as an irony, as that is the kind of gungho propaganda they try to discredit.

OOPS......

You are thinking of the original propaganda films from the 40's and 50's produced by the pentagon I think. This WWF is named the same intentionally, as an irony, as that is the kind of gungho propaganda they try to discredit.

I am sorry for the confusion I had thought you were talking about the same films.

Well since the "did Bush lie?" thread sort of devolved into this thread, might as well make the arguements here.

Is the Bush policy justified. Is our foriegn policy based on a sound, strategic vision?

I'm afraid I have to say Yes and No. To qualify my stand, let me state up front that I think being a bleeding heart on this subject is the worst kind of self deception. Compassion for everyone and everything clouds the mind and tends to make one focus on short term avoidance of sufferring while prolongating underlying problems. My position includes the following attitudes, so because humans always argue their presuppositions, I might as well try to articulate them.

Presuppositions:

1) The purpose of the military is not to avoid casualties.
2) The purpose of the military includes each of the following: to protect the non-military citizens of the USA; to further the interests of the USA; to defend the assets and territory of the USA.
3) 911 was a statement of purpose by extremist forces in the Middle East. I do not think that it was aimed to get us out of the middle east or that it was solely in reaction to the presence of our bases there. It was an in-your-face statement of "we are coming for you." This is based on observation and interpetation. You can't talk me out of it. To beat the terror threat, the ONLY response is, "oh yeah? well we're coming right back for you."
4) The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was an insufficient response to 911. Nobody cares about the country. To respond properly to 911, we needed to strike fear in the heart of every dictator in the region, particularly those who support terror as a means of extending their national interests.

Why we fight:

1) Iraq is a valuable prize. Its oil assets and position make it desirable. This is very important because of the symbolic impact of overthrowing one of the leaders of a major middle eastern country. We do not invade and occupy to posssess the prize, but to create the object lesson, to draw thw terrorists away from other operations and keep them far from our own shores. Iraq is also a valuable location, since it is located next to Iran and within striking distance of much of the middle east.

2) We must learn how to fight this enemy. We must learn the language, the culture,the values, the tactics, the assets, contacts, soft points. We are over there to recruit, to make contact, to turn our green, innocent boys into experts on fighting this enemy. We have a history of being very good at territory wars and very bad at guerilla wars. To fight the war on terror, we must become expert in fighting this enemy.

3) The people and leaders of the Middle East need to see how evil and ignoble the terror groups are. Support for terror groups must drop to improve the long term situation. The best way to spread any message is by word of mouth. So as the terror groups have failed to defeat us, they have turned to killing fellow Muslims. Some insurgent groups have turned against the terrorists. We fight to demonsrate that we are the good guys and they are not.

I feel the Bush policy has made progress in some of these objectives, but has been severely drained of its potential for success by focusing too many resources on Iraq and too many on nation building (see presuppositions).

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Why we fight:

1) Iraq is a valuable prize. Its oil assets and position make it desirable. This is very important because of the symbolic impact of overthrowing one of the leaders of a major middle eastern country. We do not invade and occupy to posssess the prize, but to create the object lesson, to draw thw terrorists away from other operations and keep them far from our own shores. Iraq is also a valuable location, since it is located next to Iran and within striking distance of much of the middle east.

2) We must learn how to fight this enemy. We must learn the language, the culture,the values, the tactics, the assets, contacts, soft points. We are over there to recruit, to make contact, to turn our green, innocent boys into experts on fighting this enemy. We have a history of being very good at territory wars and very bad at guerilla wars. To fight the war on terror, we must become expert in fighting this enemy.

3) The people and leaders of the Middle East need to see how evil and ignoble the terror groups are. Support for terror groups must drop to improve the long term situation. The best way to spread any message is by word of mouth. So as the terror groups have failed to defeat us, they have turned to killing fellow Muslims. Some insurgent groups have turned against the terrorists. We fight to demonsrate that we are the good guys and they are not.

I feel the Bush policy has made progress in some of these objectives, but has been severely drained of its potential for success by focusing too many resources on Iraq and too many on nation building (see presuppositions).

1) At least you can admit this war has much more to do with resource management and geographical location than anything else. Thank you for calling a spade a spade. However, does this make it right?

2) A valid point. We are definately gaining experience in this sort of war.

3) Another point. The invasion definately sent a message to leaders around the world, some countries have reversed historical trends from fear of being "Next on the list", at least to some extent.



The major problem is that terrorists are not a static population. Their ranks are affected primarily by our actions. We can not go back in time, but we must look at how we got here.

We were not a completely model nieghbor to the Middle East the last 60 years, and terrorists did not simply come out of nowhere to stab us in the back after we treated the people of these countries like brothers. There are reasons for terrorism, as Im sure you realize.

For instance look at Iran. After WW2 we (With Britian's help) ousted the recently democratically elected leaders of the country and installed the Shah, a reppressive, authoritarian, anti-progressive monarch. He ruled for many years because he sold us cheap oil and opened up his markets for our goods. Eventually the people got sick of him and his corruption.

The 79 revolution was in direct response to our puppet's policies, so it is no surprise we were enemy number 1, we had supported him with guns and money all those years.

After 9-11, a million people marched in Tehran in support of the USA, the Iranian government even softened their stance a bit towards us. After we invade Iraq though, everything changes, again. Hardliners are elected, like the vociferousely anti-American Achmenimijhad (sp), and public sentiment against us builds steadily.

Change the dates and names, and you can apply this formula to many countries, not just in the Middle East, but all over the world. From Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to Venezuala and Vietnam, we have consistantly undermined and oppressed popular democratic uprisings in the name of commerce and resources, especially oil, installing our own puppets, using bloodshed whenever needed.

Are there arguments to be made that some of these strategic moves had merit? Of course, foriegn policy and world politics are extremely complicated. Things like the Cold War or our admitted need for energy, complicate matters entirely beyond the usual partyline on both sides of the aisle.

Many times we are merely playing by the other sides rules. Is it smart to act like chior boys when dealing with Russia or China? Do they play fair? In many instances we can be considered the lesser of two evils, just ask anyone living in Europe between 1945 and the fall of the USSR. Whatever could be siad of our underhanded, selfish, less than wholesome moves over there, we were like white knights in a fairy tail compared to the Russians.

Yes, we are fighting the terrorists over there, for now. However, this policy will ultimately be doomed. The longer we stay there, the more recruitment power groups like Al Queda have. This invasion was the best thing that ever happened to recruiters (Assuming they make a commision like our armed forces) in terrorist groups worldwide. It was a gift.


Simply put, our presence in Iraq is an inflammatory issue. Our armed forces have done an unbelievable job. We kill many more of "them" than they kill of "us". Our troops have been stretched thin from day one, equipment like armor was at a premium, they are in the most hostile environment on Earth, and yet they do not complain. The problem is we can not kill all of the terrorists. For every dead terrorist we have a dead civilian, killed inadvertantly by one of our bullets or bombs. Think about it. If an American bomb, though accidently, killed your sister or friend, would you not be ready to fight back? All of the sudden those crazy religious guys down the street dont seem so crazy anymore.

As long as we are so blatently pursuing selfish policies, trying to wrap them in a transparent cloak of "Freedom", like keeping the Saudi royalty in power, against the wishes of 90% of the country, we will continue to have uneducated, dirtpoor, backwards, religious zealots signing up to die for rediculous reasons. Our policies need a complete overhaul. We need to be more concerned with actually improving the lot of the commen person, instead of pursuing shortterm profits. Freedom, education, equality, medicine, these need to be the number one goal.