Why We Fight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peacemonger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peacemonger

Guest
**PARK CITY (Hollywood Reporter) - The term “military-industrial complex” was coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation at the end of his second term as president in 1961. ****In ensuing years the phrase has become so commonplace that it has ceased to have any meaning. Now Eugene Jarecki’s shattering documentary “Why We Fight” examines the extent to which the military-industrial complex not only profits from war, but also becomes a force that makes war happen. Winner of the best American documentary prize at Sundance, the thoughtful and extremely well-made film could find a sizable audience of concerned citizens in theaters and later on video. **

the rest:reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reviewsNews&storyID=7539065
 
Peace, it’s nothing new that countries go to war for more than one reason. When the almighty dollar is involved it’s a certain motivator.
Of course fancy rhetoric is wrapped around the dollar, but the jist of most wars is to gain resources.
 
from the article:
  • It is necessary to accept Jarecki’s premise that the Iraq war is the result of America’s imperialistic agenda in order to see corporate greed as the underlying cause.*
I don’t! And I don’t know any rational person who does.
 
See thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37627

"…Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival wrapped up this past Saturday with an orgy of nihilism – otherwise known as its awards banquet. The winning films glorified the usual assortment of left wing, anti-American, sexually bizarre themes.
**The Grand Jury Prize for American Documentary went to Eugene Jarecki’s “Why We Fight,” a film that claims U.S. foreign policy since World War II has been formed not by the need for self-defense, but by an out-of-control military-industrial complex’s desire for profit.

The content of this film is a far cry from the original “Why We Fight,” which was an inspiring series of documentaries directed by Frank Capra during World War II. Capra, a Republican, made his films in order to boost the morale of American troops in the struggle against the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

It’s offensive in the extreme that Capra’s documentaries – so admired that Churchill declared them essential viewing – would now be lumped in with a left-wing diatribe whose only purpose is to demoralize our military and delegitimize its efforts. The hope undoubtedly is that this new “Why We Fight” will supplant the old “Why We Fight,” and thereby negate Capra’s great cinematic achievement. It’s the sort of cultural vandalism the left is famous for.**

newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/3/144934.shtml
 
Why do we fight? Because we have been attacked. To defend our children. To keep 911’s from happening. I would also remind you that the Berlin wall fell not because of pacifists, but because of our strong military and men like Ronald Reagan. If the pacifists were in charge they iron curtain would still be there and the gulags would be open for business.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Why do we fight? Because we have been attacked. To defend our children. To keep 911’s from happening. I would also remind you that the Berlin wall fell not because of pacifists, but because of our strong military and men like Ronald Reagan. If the pacifists were in charge they iron curtain would still be there and the gulags would be open for business.
Click to expand...
Iraq did not attack the United States in September 2001
 
They attacked Kuwait a US ally. They repeatedly violated UN resolutions. They were a threat to regional stability and ultimately our security. Our war is against terrorists everywhere. I assume you do support our battle in Afghanistan where they were actively assisting and protecting bin laden and his terrorists.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Iraq did not attack the United States in September 2001
Click to expand...
Iraq is but one part of the bigger picture. For years, we watched as Israel dealt on a daily basis with the result of Islamic facism, never dreaming that it would hit home. When it finally and inevitably did, we recognized the need to step in and (1) stabilize that part of the world and (2) recognize that Islam poses a real and genuine threat to our security.

Iraq is a foothold into a very volatile region. It is imperative that we garner and maintain a presence there, whether its popular or not, whether we want to or not or whether the narrow-minded pinheads who say its all about oil agree with it or not. Our national security depends on it.

Get over the '60s already. We live in a post 9-11 world and we’re all vulnerable, every last one of us, unless we do the things that are distasteful…like going into foreign countries and removing dictators, holding elections and initiating democracy.

I, for one, am proud that we do these things. It helps ensure the survival of western civilization. And I’m not partial to praying to Mecca.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
They attacked Kuwait a US ally. They repeatedly violated UN resolutions. They were a threat to regional stability and ultimately our security. Our war is against terrorists everywhere. I assume you do support our battle in Afghanistan where they were actively assisting and protecting bin laden and his terrorists.
Click to expand...
You assume incorrectly. The Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified.
  • It was not waged to liberate woman from tyranny, the US maintains close relations with Saudi Arabia whose treatment of women is little different to that of the Taliban, US allies in Afghanistan often treat woman in the same way as the Taliban
  • It was not waged to tackle the drugs trade, the Taliban was so succesful at eliminating it that the USA granted them millions of dollars as a reward. Since the invasion ~ latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer23nov23,0,5460571.column

    Afghanistan’s opium production has soared in the last year to an all-time high. The raw form of heroin is now the staple crop in every province, while in just one year the area under poppy cultivation has increased 64%. The country produces 87% of the world’s opium, and one out of 10 Afghans is employed by the illicit industry, according to the alarming U.N. report.

    Of course, brandishing quotes from the U.N. doesn’t sit well with isolationist yahoos. So, for them, here are highlights from the White House’s own Office of National Drug Control Policy report, which Friday painted an even darker picture: “Current [Afghan opium] cultivation levels equate to a … 239% increase in the poppy crop and a 73% increase in potential opium production over 2003 estimates” — a sixfold increase in the three years since the Taliban was driven from Kabul.

    No matter whom you listen to, then, the drug war in Afghanistan is a bust. Unfortunately, both the U.N. and the White House have repeatedly said the drug war and the war on terror are nearly synonymous, especially in Afghanistan, where drug money has long directly and indirectly aided and abetted extremists such as Al Qaeda.

    Indeed, this administration came into office preoccupied by the war on drugs and indifferent to the war on terror. Before 9/11, even though Afghanistan was harboring the world’s No. 1 terror suspect and his organization, the White House was so happy with the Taliban regime’s drug-trade crackdown that Secretary of State Colin Powell announced in May 2001 May that the U.S. was extending $43 million in humanitarian aid to Kabul, under U.N. auspices, as a reward.
  • It was not waged against the perpetrators of the September 2001 attacks. The Taliban did not attack the USA.
 
40.png
condan:
I, for one, am proud that we do these things. It helps ensure the survival of western civilization. And I’m not partial to praying to Mecca.
Click to expand...
Saddam was a secularist. Islamists called him an infidel because he was not particularly keen on praying to Allah while facing Mecca (nobody prays to Mecca which is a city, Muslims normally pray to God) either.

How does deposing a secularist weaken Islamic extremism?
 
40.png
Matt25:
What he said was

Which other attack do you think he had in mind?
Click to expand...
Ask him. Saddam attacked us many times, including trying to assasinate the 1st President Bush and shooting at our planes trying to protect the UN mandated no-fly zones. Where have you been?
 
40.png
gilliam:
Ask him. Saddam attacked us many times, including trying to assasinate the 1st President Bush and shooting at our planes trying to protect the UN mandated no-fly zones. Where have you been?
Click to expand...
Saddam also offered a reward to families of suicide bombers that attacked the USA. He did so, on TV, with is sons, on September 11, 2002. Some people say he only said it, didnt’ do it, but I don’t see how it could have been ignored.

Good ridance, Saddam
 
40.png
Jay74:
Saddam also offered a reward to families of suicide bombers that attacked the USA. He did so, on TV, with is sons, on September 11, 2002. Some people say he only said it, didnt’ do it, but I don’t see how it could have been ignored.

Good ridance, Saddam
Click to expand...
What did he say?
 
40.png
Matt25:
You assume incorrectly. The Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified.
  • It was not waged to liberate woman from tyranny, the US maintains close relations with Saudi Arabia whose treatment of women is little different to that of the Taliban, US allies in Afghanistan often treat woman in the same way as the Taliban
  • It was not waged to tackle the drugs trade, the Taliban was so succesful at eliminating it that the USA granted them millions of dollars as a reward. Since the invasion ~ latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer23nov23,0,5460571.column

    Afghanistan’s opium production has soared in the last year to an all-time high. The raw form of heroin is now the staple crop in every province, while in just one year the area under poppy cultivation has increased 64%. The country produces 87% of the world’s opium, and one out of 10 Afghans is employed by the illicit industry, according to the alarming U.N. report.

    Of course, brandishing quotes from the U.N. doesn’t sit well with isolationist yahoos. So, for them, here are highlights from the White House’s own Office of National Drug Control Policy report, which Friday painted an even darker picture: “Current [Afghan opium] cultivation levels equate to a … 239% increase in the poppy crop and a 73% increase in potential opium production over 2003 estimates” — a sixfold increase in the three years since the Taliban was driven from Kabul.

    No matter whom you listen to, then, the drug war in Afghanistan is a bust. Unfortunately, both the U.N. and the White House have repeatedly said the drug war and the war on terror are nearly synonymous, especially in Afghanistan, where drug money has long directly and indirectly aided and abetted extremists such as Al Qaeda.

    Indeed, this administration came into office preoccupied by the war on drugs and indifferent to the war on terror. Before 9/11, even though Afghanistan was harboring the world’s No. 1 terror suspect and his organization, the White House was so happy with the Taliban regime’s drug-trade crackdown that Secretary of State Colin Powell announced in May 2001 May that the U.S. was extending $43 million in humanitarian aid to Kabul, under U.N. auspices, as a reward.
  • It was not waged against the perpetrators of the September 2001 attacks. The Taliban did not attack the USA.
Click to expand...
Frankly, if you can’t support the attack on the terrorists in Afghanistan, there is no hope for you.
 
40.png
swampfox:
Frankly, if you can’t support the attack on the terrorists in Afghanistan, there is no hope for you.
Click to expand...
I always thought no one was beyond redemption, but hey I’m just an old fashioned Catholic. Talking of which did the Pope support the invasion of Afghanistan? Just asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top