Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Afghanistan's election a sign that war was worth the cost

Comments

Return To Article
  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 9, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    ‘In our opinion: Afghanistan's election a sign that war was worth the cost’

    =======

    Ummmm....

    150,000 Muslims dead
    5,000 Americans dead
    75,000 Americans wounded
    $3.5 Trillion

    and 7.5 million votes

    That equals =
    50 votes per dead muslim
    1,500 votes per dead American
    100 votes per wounded American
    $466,666 per vote

    I don't know what math you are using,
    but
    I don't think it was worth it.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    An election is just the beginning. Wait until you see what they do with democracy before you start declaring it was worth it.

    Democracy and elections can be nasty little things leading to awful results. Read World on Fire, a well documented history of democracy gone bad.

    My guess though is cthat this piece is not so much a thoughtful declaration as a partisan statement.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    To say the war was worth the cost over one election and not knowing how it will all play out once the U.S. effeectively leaves is a little premature. Frankly, I don't see how it was worth the cost to the U.S. The Biden "doctrine" would have been better - surgical strikes instead of neo-con invasions.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    April 9, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    So the wealthy can buy their politicians too?

    So freedom of speech means legalized bribery?

    We have no right to spread our system of corruption.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 9, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Since bringing democracy to the Afghans was never a purpose for invading, even if the country turns into an Islamic Sweden it would be by accident rather than by design. As for the cost, today's DN comments could be right - after another four or five valid elections. We need to keep in mind that this is really a tribal society, and the Afghans certainly didn't ask the US for a democratic makeover.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 9, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    "In our opinion: Afghanistan's election a sign that war was worth the cost’"

    And most people that say that

    - Didn't pay for it. That will be handled by future generations
    - Didn't get deployed
    - Didn't lose a child or sibling
    - Had nothing invested

    Yes, I guess that under those circumstances, you may conclude that it was "worth it"

    I dont believe it was

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 9, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    Why do some people think that they are the only people on earth who deserve to be free? Why do they think that dollars are more important than freedom? What price would they pay to secure those liberties for themselves and for their children?

    Freedom comes at a great cost. When the colonies rebelled against King George, those colonies sacrificed everything. That was not nearly enough. France came to our aid. Without the help of that "world power", we would probably still be under the rule of Great Britain. The cost in dollars and in lives was horrendous, but it was necessary.

    To my knowledge, no country on earth was "given" freedom. It has to be earned. It has to be paid for by blood, both from the citizens of those countries and of those who care enough to send their sons and daughters to expand freedom.

    The cost was great, but the people have started to throw off the yoke of oppression. They have started. The patriots who made it possible will not be forgotten.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 9, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    I'm wondering WHO at the Deseret News is an actual conflict Veteran?

    Who was deployed?
    Who lived away from their families 6 out of the last 10 years
    [2 year LDS missions do NOT ocunt by a long shot]

    Who went through a divorce?
    Who missed most of the children's lives?
    Who can't get a good job now?
    Who suffers PTSD?
    and
    WHO will never walk again?

    You find THAT guy,
    and have him tell us it was worth it!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 9, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    @pragmatistferlife – “Democracy and elections can be nasty little things leading to awful results. Read World on Fire, a well documented history of democracy gone bad.”

    Democracy per se is not the problem… it’s uneducated or morally corrupt people. Sadly, many are simply not ready for democracy and will make bad choices when given the chance. But without giving people the opportunity to make those choices, how will they ever learn?

    I haven’t read the book, but would guess most of the problems are not long standing democracies, but democracies that elect bad people who afterwards tear down any institutions that support real democracy (which is the only self-correcting mechanism to check government power).

    As far as the war being worth it, who knows? Let’s ask our grandchildren since they’re the ones footing the bill.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    I wonder if the Afghans have the same sort of Democracy we enjoy here in America?

    You know --
    Corporations are PEOPLE,
    and Unlimted Money legally buys and bribes UnLimited Political favors.

    Who's going to attack, invade, and occupy US to save us from ourselves?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    @mike richards. Just the other day you said the government doesn't give us freedom or rights but god gives us freedom and rights.

    Which is it?

    I believe the 17 duties enumerated in the constitution does not mention nation rebuilding.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 9, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Mike,

    Is "liberating the people of another country" enumerated in our constitution?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    IMO... the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 since then... is proof that it was worth it.

    I don't care if they adopt our form of democracy. I think we needed to do what we did though, to keep the conflict over there where it starts... and not over here where it ends.

    They claimed they had other attacks in the works... we had to do something!

    We couldn't just let the attacks come and do nothing!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    IMO... the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 since then... is proof that it was worth it.

    I don't care if they adopt our form of democracy. I think we needed to do what we did though, to keep the conflict over there where it starts... and not over here where it ends.

    They claimed they had other attacks in the works... we had to do something!

    We couldn't just let the attacks come and do nothing!

    12:35 p.m. April 9, 2014

    =========

    19 people 2 bits,
    19 people pulled of 9/11

    And we did do somehting.
    Bush --
    killed 150,000
    and spend $3.3 Trillion.

    Pres. Obama actually ended it with;

    Good Intelligence,
    some drone strikes,
    3 helicopters,
    and less than 15 minutes with 30 Navy Seals,
    in PAKISTAN.

    Bush's plan made Military contractors and Wallstreet investors insanely wealthy and did nothing to change the situation,

    while Obama's plan worked.

    I disagree with you, and the Deseret News.

    NOT worth it.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    $3 trillion and thousands dead?

    How do I, Joe Sixpack, benefit from Bush's war in Afghanistan?

    Why did we invade Afghanistan in the first place? I don't remember Afghanistan ever attacking us.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 9, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    "IMO... the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 since then... is proof that it was worth it."

    If the goal was preventing another 911, there would certainly have been ways to accomplish that, that would have been far lest costly in terms of $$ and lives.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    @2 BITS
    You and Mike Richards always pull out the constitution when you disagree with something you find liberal. So here's my question, what does 9/11 have to do with two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. The attackers were Saudi's, they were headquartered in Pakistan. So i'm sure going after Iraq and Afganistan clearly provides for the common defense......... Or if you agree with it does it not matter if something is constitutional or not?

  • eagle Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle:

    You beat me to the punch. If Mike Richards is a true Libertarian or Constitutional scholar, he would by no means support this war. I guess he's a partisan neocon after all.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    A lot of people are up in arms about the Constitutional authority to use the military to establish democracy in foreign lands. Have they written President Obama? After all, he is the Commander in Chief. He is ultimately responsible for sending troops and munitions to those countries. He has been in office for five years. It's HIS war now. He did nothing to stop it. He's a "Constitutional Expert", so surely he has studied the Constitution and decided that he really did have authority to send our sons and daughters to foreign lands, to be shot at, to be wounded, and to be killed.

    If those who shake their fists at the illegality of using our military to assist other nations were honest, they would also shake their fists at FDR for starting Social Security, at Johnson for starting Medicare, at Obama for ObamaCare and for doing nothing about those other unauthorized programs. If they were honest, they would demand that those items, which approach 75% of the budget, be eliminated, that people be repaid their Social Security "taxes" and that government stay out of unauthorized "duties".

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @ J Thompson, Obama did nothing to stop the war in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? He's pulling troops out in a responsible way rather than running or abandoning the mess he was handed. I'm not really sure what your pont is.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle,
    If you don't know what Afghanistan and the Taliban had to do with 9/11 by now... I can't help you. Nothing I can say would help you understand.

    Iraq is a different war. Different topic.

    ===

    I think it was Constitutional. Congress approved. That's what the Constitution requires.

    If we were attacked (and we were) the Constitution doesn't limit our response to the nation of citizenship of the individuals on the planes. They were just soldiers, mercenaries. Their leaders and training camps... were in Afghanistan.

    You know who planned 9/11 right? And where they lived, trained and were radicalizing people interested in jihad... right?.

    Your pretense (that we can only respond to the nations of citizenship of the people on the planes... not where the people who said they had more attacks planned were operating at the time... not where their leaders, trainers, AlQaeda generals were at the time )... just seems silly.

    No Constitutional problem with Afghanistan. In fact.. if our leaders had done nothing... they would have been neglecting their Constitutional duty to protect us.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle,
    If you have such Constitutional problems with Afghanistan... How do you defend Obama's decision to use American Military in Libya, Pakistan, Mali, etc... Countries we are not at war with... Countries that never threatened or attacked us.... without Congressional approval?

    Congress hasn't approved ANY military action in these nations who didn't attack us! But we attacked them! Why no problem for you? Partisan blindness?

    How is bombing countries that didn't threaten us... with no Congressional approval... better than responding to our being attacked on 9/11??

    Just because Obama did it instead of a Republican?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 9, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    @2 bits – “I think it was Constitutional. Congress approved. That's what the Constitution requires.”

    And if you would have added at the beginning “not only I, but the Supreme Court” then this statement (which I agree with by the way), is all we would ever need to know when looking at any of the policies and programs of our country.

    So once and for all (looking at you Mr. Richards) can we put to bed the “Constitutional” debate on Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare and all the other policies that have passed this test.

    Unless of course you believe that only you own interpretation of our charter should govern, in which case I would submit you do not believe in a republic or democracy and would prefer a dictatorship (or more likely a theocracy).

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    @2bits
    Ok, so all I can find about Mali is that we sent 10 guys to act as liasons and not participate in active combat. Ya, that's not a war. Pakistan, well on one hand he actually got the guy who planned 9/11, unlike the war in Afghanistan, on the other hand it probably wasn't constitutional..... Libya is the place you mention that makes me laugh, you were one of the many who were angry about the way Obama handled the Benghazi attack and wanted to know why so few troops were there to protect the ambassador, you really can't have it both ways on that one.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    @Tyler,
    You may have overreached on my comment. I didn't say anything Congress approves is Constitutional.

    But only Congress can declare war (not the President). ANY President needs to get Congress approval to involve the United States in a war. Bush did.

    ===

    I don't know if I have Constitutional issues with Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare and all other policies... haven't thought about it. But I didn't say that anything Congress approves is Constitutional. Just that the Constitution requires Congress approve taking the country to war. And we did in Afghanistan. They approved almost unanimously.

    ===

    Obamacare seems to be on the line (at least the individual mandate). It was declared unconstitutional by several courts. The only way the Supreme Court could find to let it stand was to call it a "Tax". So it kinda remained law on a technicality (that we call it a "Tax").

    ===

    I don't claim to know a ton about the Constitution. But I know that nothing done in Afghanistan was unconstitutional. And that accusation is what I was responding too... Not the expanded scope that ANYTHING Congress approves becomes Constitutional. That's obviously not true.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    Tyler D, "As far as the war being worth it, who knows? Let’s ask our grandchildren since they’re the ones footing the bill."

    That was my point, minus the money issue "Wait until you see what they do with democracy before you start declaring it was worth it."

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    Mike Richards neglected to explain how the invasion of Afghanistan squares with the Constitution. I must have missed that article in there that justifies starting wars in foreign nations. So much for the pronouncements of the founding fathers who warned us against meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. Defending this invasion paves the way for more "humanitarian" adventures in the future. Is that what really want?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    There were at least 1,684 soldiers who were killed in that country since Obama took office. He is the Commander in Chief. He is a Constitutional Expert. He continued the war at a horrendous cost to the families of those 1,684 soldiers. Until his supporters demand an accounting from him for those deaths, nothing that they say about Constitution authorization on any subject is valid.

    A police officer will cite anyone speeding through a school zone. He will not use some flimsy excuse that he is trying to "taper off" speeding. His concern is for the children in that zone. The Commander in Chief's first concern must be the welfare of his soldiers. If the war is just and Constitutional, he will send them into battle, knowing that the price of freedom is high. But, if the war is not Constitutional, as stated by many on this forum, his first duty is to protect the lives of those soldiers.

    I agree with the Deseret News. The price for freedom for that people was paid in part by patriots from America. God bless them all.

  • eagle Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:38 p.m.

    Just to be consistent, I don't approve of most military options used by our current President. But the difference between me and say Mike Richards, I don't agree or disagree based on the party of who is President. I'm actually consistent on my position. Getting into Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong and staying in there any longer than needed is wrong.