I'm not concerned with what people "think". We've hammered in
against Al Qaida on a level they still struggle to make up for, and more
importantly, the people in Iraq can vote. The people in Iraq are free to speak,
dress, worship, learn, and own their own property. No matter how much anyone
may disagree with us having gone over, we've done an immeasurable service
to those people.It's a shame so much propaganda gets thrown out
against it; you almost have to speak with someone who actually fought there, or
visit yourself and speak with the people to truly understand.
Not that I am especially smart, but I could have told Bush and others in his
administration years ago that a country like the U.S. could never go to a Muslim
country and change their culture. The Islamic religion is always entrenched in
the body politic of such countries. To do so is like some foreign country
coming to America and attempting to get Americans to change their Christian
beliefs. Only worse in the case if Islam. And the U.S. is seen as the Great
Satin to many in the Middle East anyway, so it is especially futile for the U.S.
to have any lasting influence over there other than to help create more people
who hate us. Nation building in the Middle East, stupid, stupid idea that will
never work. At best we replace one dictator who turned on us with another who
will turn on us, or be taken out by his own people.
And I am one of those Americans who see a failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.We need to be much less willing as a country to get into military
conflict around the world.I am not saying never, but extremely
selectively, with the minimal amount of troops and money.The idea
that we need militarily spread democracy around the world is crazy. Supporting
democracy is one thing. Engaging militarily in long term occupations is
completely different.The amount of money we borrowed (and continue
to borrow) from China to support wars of choice should make any true
conservative cringe.Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of
military conflict that should have never happened.
As usual look no further than the present occupant of the White House.
I've been saying this for 13 years!BTW -- The only way
one can consider any of this a success is if you completely ignore the
loss of 5,000 Americans, 75,000 wounded, and $3 Trillion, so
gasoline could stay under $5 a gallon.
9/11 demanded a serious response. The Middle East is an extremely difficult area
to deal with, because of the convoluted politics there. Islamic terrorists are
still a problem, for the peoples of that region as well as the rest of the
world. We need to do better; i.e. smarter than we have done. By itself, military
action is insufficient; civil action helps; but,why not track the money trail
and take action? Without funding, terrorism would shrink.
Well it shows how much very few Americans understand what is happening in the
world. If you go back in history the US funded most of the terrorists groups we
are now fighting. Back in the 1980's we wanted to make Afghanistan bloody
the USSR and turn it into what Vietnam was for us. It worked. We trained,
supplied and even gave propaganda material about invaders.Yep, that
is what we are experiencing. Had Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton,
Bush Jr, Obama realized when Osama declared Jihad on the US, Israel and other
"infidels" we should have been working on this situation differently
from the beginning. Instead Clinton was screwing any woman that liked him and
was more worried about that than killing Osama or boosting our image in those
countries that we had abandoned.Either way, we're abandoning
them again. The problem is still there and like our national debt, our children
and grandchildren get to inherit a bigger mess. But, hey we gave them
"medical pot" to ease that pain!
For the same $3 Trillion we lost in the Middle East, The Government could
have put Solar Panels on each and every house in America, ANDbought
everyone and an electric vechile.Think about it...
@mohokat"As usual look no further than the present occupant of
the White House."While I was in Iraq in 2004/2005 (funny I
didn't see you there), I saw failure. That was long before the
"present occupant of the of the White House." We were fed a
line of lies and deception to take out an evil dictator who was bend on US
destruction and had links to the 9/11 attacks. Hmmm. I saw friends killed and
maimed for no real reason. All of us questioned why we were even there. Again,
long before President Obama.
The majority of Americans are, more often than not, correct.
WE haven't read any of the history of Afghanistan. Iraq has a similar
history but not quite so brutal. They are ruled by tribes. The last person to
beat Afghanistan was Gengus Kahn in the 1200's. He destroyed a city then
killed every man, woman, child and animal left. Then he moved on to the next
city and repeated the same procedure. Ask Alexander the great, the British and
Russians. They all lost and so are we losing. The last war that we won was WW
II for one simple reason. We put a muzzle on the media and inflicted massive
collateral damage. That includes England's 1000 airplane raids on Germany,
our firebombing Tokyo and finally atomic bombing two Japanese cities. The
Muslums don't mind inflicting massive collateral damage on us so we had
better get smart before we die.
The US has liberated people of other nations from murdering tyrannical dictators
all over the world for decades, then left and allowed the liberated people to
govern themselves; Japan, most of Europe (twice in one century) the Philippines,
S. Korea, among others. More recently Iraq and Afghanistan. What each country
does with the liberation is up to them, not us! What ever you think about the
futility of doing that, try to imagine a world where we didn't intervene!
@CHS 85Thanks for your service. I was in during Nam but was in
Europe. I checked with several of my buddies who were in Nam and guess what?
They don't remember seeing you there.
mohokatOgden, UTAs usual look no further than the present occupant
of the White House.8:07 a.m. Feb. 6, 2014======== That "present occupant of the White House" mopped up and closed
that entire chapter in U.S. history during Operation Neptune Spear for the price
of an accidental loss of a U.S. helicopter and 15 minutes of a Navy Seal Team 6
with NO U.S. causalties.(1) H-60 Blackhawk = $5.9 Million(12)
Navy Seals @ $25/hour = $75Everything else has been Bush/Cheney.FYI -- Mission Accomplished [May 02, 2011 in Abbottabad, PAKISTAN]
@mohokat"I checked with several of my buddies who were in Nam
and guess what? They don't remember seeing you there."Well,
since I was born the year combat operations started in Vietnam, it wasn't
feasible.My point was that the people who were/are all about
"supporting the troops" are good at waving flags, but really bad at
picking up a rifle and doing their part. If most of the flag-wavers saw what I
saw, they'd think twice before rushing the country into war. You want to
actually support he troops? Don't send them to fight in meaningless
conflicts. The last time I checked (and I've been retired now for six
years), is that it is the Department of Defense, not the Department of Nation
Whether the Afghanistan War is a success or failure is a matter of
perspective.Certainly to the American taxpayer who is now expected
to pay the financial costs of the war; And the men and women in the US military
and innocent Afghan civilians, and their families, who paid the greatest costs,
the war is likely viewed as a failure.On the other Hand, Before the
war opium production in Afghanistan was almost entirely eliminated under Taliban
rule. Now Afghanistan produces almost 75% of the world's heroin supply,
thanks in part to US troops ordered to protect the fields. I guess "The War
on Terror" supercedes "The War on Drugs".So who are some
of the winners in Afghanistan. Military Industrial Corporations and contractors
such as Halliburton and Blackwater that have seen record profits. Drug Lords
and the Western Banks that launder their money have seen good times. The CIA,
for which heroin has been a cash crop for years are probably not complaining.The Chinese are doing very well buying up resources in Afghanistan
having established lithium mining operations there.failure or
success? It's all a matter of perspective.
I'm disappointed more people didn't see this outcome before we
ventured down this road. Iraq was a factious dystopia of religious groups that
hate one another held together by a strongman, and we took the strongman away.
And look at the history of Afghanistan. The british experience. The russian
experience. It was bound to be a mess. And then, for some reason we decided we
needed to fight terrorism as if terrorism was using second world war tactics,
and that they had uniforms and flags and armies. Who could have predicted that
It seems to me that everything we know comes from biased media. Studies and
polls probably only tell us how well they are at convincing us of their
That was pretty obvious in Afghanistan by mid-2002 and in Iraq before we even
started it. As for anyone blaming Obama, I'd like to know what you think we
should have done instead.
@CHS 85I agree with your last paragraph. The right analogy. @ LDS LiberalGood score card. Now give us one on Bengazi.
Brack was great being the situation room and getting in the photo on the Bin
Laden operation but he was AWOL on Bengazi. We still don't know his
whereabouts. then lied through his teeth about the video.
At least this poll doesn't have the partisan divide. That's
refreshing. Maybe it's because BOTH sides have had a try and failed.
Until Obama got his try and also failed... I think we would have seen more
partisan differences.===LDS Liberal,How much of
America's oil actually comes from Iraq and Afghanistan? It's not
much.I think blame it on $5.00/gallon gas is disingenuous and a sign
of a person who lives in a reality defined by partisan talking points.===And if it's just about $5.00 gas... why has Obama kept our
troops in there? Is he also owned by Bush's evil Big-Oil buddies?===happy2bhere,Our goal was NOT to convert them to
Christianity. If you think back... the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were
trained in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban which controlled the
government. To deter future attacks... a response (and regime change) was our
goal.Iraq is more complicated. I know you don't believe this,
but I believe that the main reason for America wanting regime change there
was... Saddam Hussein was a DE-stabilising force in the middle-east, he
encouraged and funded international terrorism.
The administration has committed to maintain a non-combat presence in
Afghanistan with 7,000 to 15,000 remaining troops, additional financial aid and
continuing support for an indeterminate length of time. Can you say Vietnam.
The big hang up, Afghanistan wants to be able to prosecute US troops in their
courts, in the event civilians die in crossfire.As for Iraq, we will
be back.The result our troops will be getting shot at for years to
come in these countries.And the new troop commitments, Mali, Sudan,
-----, the list keeps expanding.
I can't keep up with the flip-flopping logic.If a poll says
most Utahns do not support Gay marriage, the poll is right.If a poll
says most Americans think Afghanistan and Iraq were failures, that Global
Warming is real,that Utah's air is aweful, that Barack Obama is
winning and has won, again, the poll is wrong. The only
conclusion I'm beginning to see is that Conservative see the entire world
and reality through a very small myopic, knot-hole from their own little
Related to our situation with Iraq, I wonder how many people remember the name
"Hans Blix"?I remember in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq
that Hans Blix was fairly widely castigated as being a dupe of Saddam. Of
course, after we failed to find WMD, Blix was essentially exonerated, but by
then we were waist deep in a conflict far beyond the scope anyone imagined.
"9/11 demanded a serious response."Agreed.So why
did we invade Iraq?Why did we attempt to nation build Afghanistan?
Why did we take our focus off the guy who actually planned and
organized the 9/11 attacks? Thanks goodness we have Obama. Had we
maintained repub control we'd be off invading another middle-eastern
country rather than actually capturing the mastermind behind 9/11.Sorry repubs, you had your shot. You had 8 years to find and get him. You
failed. Time to move on
Invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading Mexico because of Pearl
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLDS Liberal,How much of
America's oil actually comes from Iraq and Afghanistan? It's not
much.I think blame it on $5.00/gallon gas is disingenuous and a sign
of a person who lives in a reality defined by partisan talking points.======== FYI -- Oil is sold on the GLOBAL market, the
point of origin is irrelevant to global price.Also why the KeyStone
Pipeline cutting through America will not benefit Americans.
2bits, "I believe that the main reason for America wanting regime change
there was... Saddam Hussein was a DE-stabilising force in the
middle-east,"As a harsh critic of the Iraq war, and Obama's
Afghanistan policy I will give you the above statement somewhat. I
think the neo-cons did believe the above, but that view was embedded in a very
naïve and distorted, and what proved to be, dangerous view of the middle
east. What scares me is that view is still around. Lindsay Graham, and John
McCain are still talking about good guys and bad guys in the middle east
relative to democracy and American interests. The President's
hesitancy towards all of these groups is far more realistic. Fact is they
don't give a hoot about American interests. Your friend today is your
There were a multitude of reasons and rationalizations for taking military
action in Iraq.In my mind #1 was that he was involved in funding and
encouraging terrorist attacks (not 9/11). He offered a $50,000 reward for
anyone who would carry out suicide attacks against Americans or Jews. $50,000
is a lifetime income in those countries.#2 was his nuclear weapons
program. There was already 100% certainty that he had and used chemical
weapons (from the attack on the Kurds in the Iran/Iraq war). You can't
use them if you don't have them. The international community
also had concerns about Iraq's nuclear weapons program (Hussein and his
military leaders admitted they had one). The UN had inspectors in Iraq
monitoring their progress. When Hussein kicked UN inspectors out... that
raised the threat level (crossed the red line). He didn't
respond to the ultimatum to let inspectors back in in time.... we had not option
but to do something. He provoked a standoff. If we did nothing... it would
prove the US was a paper-tiger (something he fully believed and wanted to prove
to the rest of the middle-east).There were lots of reasons (not just
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTAll proven wrong.Why do you
continue to defend a lie?Let me guess, You've never
served in the military.
The Republican Party took us into Iraq under false pretenses and they never have
been held accountable, and I suppose never will. Our political system
Open Minded Mormon,Not true. What of the 3 things I mentioned can
you "prove wrong"?He did offer rewards to suicide bombers
(not just in Iraq). That is proven and well documented.He did have
chemical weapons (He use them on the Kurds). That is also proven and well
documented.Nuclear Weapons program. Also 100% proven (by the UN
Inspectors). We knew they had the program, they admitted it, and even allowed
UN Nuclear inspectors in to monitor it's progress (at first).What of these was proven false??===You're always
trying to make assumptions (based on your stereotypes). Yes I did serve in the
military. And so did my father. And his father. And my brothers.===Some of the evidence used in the UN presentation turned out be
bogus.... but a lot of it didn't. One spoiled apple doesn't mean
they all are bad. Just because one piece of evidence turned out to be bad...
doesn't mean every rational presented was bad.You have such a
biased view of this... I really don't trust your opinion on it to be
2bits, here's the reality; "In its comprehensive 30 September 2004
report (also known as the Duelfer Report), the Iraq Survey Group concluded that
Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the first
Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the
program thereafter.  Surviving Iraqi nuclear facilities, which were almost
entirely destroyed during the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, are
controlled by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). The inspectors
weren't worried when they were kicked out because they knew he didn't
have a program. The only evidence at all for a program was fake (some aluminum
tubes)You forget that after the Kurdish slaughter Iraq endured 10
years of devastating sanctions. It nearly destroyed the entire nation, and we
knew it. Thus the weak response when we attacked. Of all your
points the only left is the offer to suicide bombers, hardly a reason to lose
5,000 lives and trillions of dollars.
@2bITSIraq was all about oil. It just wasn't about oil the way most
people think. It wasn't to go to Iraq, dig the oil up and ship it back to
the USA. It was because Sadaam wanted to move the oil trading currency away from
the US Dollar. If it was all about stopping strongmen we should have invaded 75%
of the countries in Africa and S America and pretty much all of the Middle East.
It was all about Sadaam trying to convince OPEC, China and other large oil
producers to stop using the dollar as their trading currency.
pragmatistferlife,Have you read the Interim Progress Report from the
ISG?This from the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) (AKA "The Duelfer
Report").(ref wikipedia):"After six months searching
for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on 3 October 2003. The team
said it HAD found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no
actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons".Note: They said
they "HAD found evidence of WMD-related program activities".===Quote 2:"The October 2003 report also includes
discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the UN and concealed during the
International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in
2002".So it sounds like the ISG was not as convinced as you are
that nothing prohibited by the UN Sanctions was going on in Iraq.IF
the UN thought nothing was going on... WHY did they approve resolution 1441?
(final opportunity to comply with it's disarmament obligations and stating
Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms of resolution 687)?Read the long list of UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq if you
think they were innocent!===Noodlekaboodle,I
thought I heard the twilight-zone theme when reading your conspiracy theory.
2 bitsYou must have misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking
about converting them to Christianity. I was merely pointing out that in those
countries the political and religious are equal. So when we try to change their
politics, we also are interfering with their religion. Islam and democracy are
like water and oil. They don't mix very well.
In retrospect did our political leaders and our media leaders exercise due
diligence with the "march to war with Iraq"?