What should President Obama do with Iraq? Should he keep American soldiers there or remove them?

Members of our troops posing with their families in mind.
Members of our troops posing with their families in mind.

Switching the war to Afghanistan is not a bad idea

Obama should of course retrieve our militants from Iraq. This is a war that this country should never have gotten involved in. War is a business, and if a business is not making any profit why run it. I mean us the tax payers are the stakeholders, we're investing but we're not seeing any return on our investment, so who do we hold responsible ...our government.


If our governments are the brokers and they're not investing wisely, why keep them. I know some of you might not like this idea of war being thought of as a business, but I got a surprise for you, it’s precisely that. I know there are moral issues involve, it’s the most barbaric way of doing business, but it is what it is.


During war, lots of weapons are sold which creates a demand for the weapons manufactures. The companies who manufactured the militant’s uniforms get lots of business. The opportunity for promotion among militants rises because more of them are dieing. The advantage for incentive which usually means more money for the soldiers becomes plentiful because they're constantly being promoted to replace dieing soldiers. The morgue industry is booming because dead bodies brings in more business. And of course if they is a war, they must be fighting for something, and that something usually brings money, more power or territory, otherwise why fight.


· As long as power is not centralized and the world is divided into separate countries, war will always be inevitable. The division of power which exists between nations and mankind are like two pieces of magnetized irons that repel every time they try to unite, ones ego will always wants to fly higher than the other. Although centralizing power can help reduce conflict among nations, it's not clear what effect it would have had on the people.


· As of now I think we have too much on our plate. Knowing when not to attack is the best rule of engagement in military operations. It's easy to talk about going to war when you've never participated in one. As the president elect said "we focus our attention on Iraq when we haven't finished our jobs in Afghanistan." If we must fight a war than Afghanistan should be the one. Since the possibility for potential civilian casualty would be less in Afghanistan.


The geography of Afghanistan is different from Iraq in a sense that Afghanistan is a country of many mountains where as Iraq is more of a plateau. From that perspective, we can assume that mountains could be viewed as a barricade that could protect Afghans civilians under missile attacks which would have resulted in fewer casualties than Iraq. This is why if we must position our troops anywhere, it should be there. Beside, as president elect indicated, the Taliban & Al Qaeda are using Afghanistan as safe haven.


· If we were to take our boys from Iraq, it would not have been a bad idea. We could use that money we're using to fund the war to create new jobs. This is the time where I think we should take a chill pill, relax look into other venues because tomorrow is not promising, for every day we live is a day left behind. I know that President Barack Obama wants to hit the floor running, but at the same time he must be careful not to fall.

· Obama's intention to send troops to Afghanistan could be seen as a substitution for the war in Iraq. People will question is there really a need to send troop to Afghanistan. Although Mr. Obama may be the commander in chief doesn't imply that his commands will not be challenge. The team of maverick will challenge president elect Borack Obama. Mr. Obama sees this challenge as an advantage to his decision process. It provides him the possibility to see what he normally would not have noticed had he chose people who agrees with him 100% of the time.


· We the people must take in consideration that having a president that we approved of is still not enough for us to gain confidence. This is why we the people must intervene to put in our 2 cents by making our voices  heard. As I said before, war is a business and so far we're not profiting. Although Mr. Obama may have good reasons for shifting the war to Afghanistan doesn't remove from the fact that some people will not make money from it.


It is only by keeping a war that certain transactions can be possible. War in a sense is an opportunity for some business to prosper. At times of war most media get lots of viewers which then create new opportunity for advertisements. At times of war new contracts are created and contract under our constitution is in fact an agreement that needs to be revisited. For further information please click on the link at the bottom of this page. Anyhow, this is simply another way of looking at war, because war is not always about whose wrong or right.


We the people are very often misdirected as to why our country goes to war. But when we take a deep look into war, we noticed other reasons that are more valid then the one we're given. So lets us keep our eyes open this time around because our involvement is more important than the president elect.


I do understand the rush to pass responsibility over to the president elect, but to shift blame at the same time when he hasn't even been president for not even a day shows how some people are so eager to see him fail. The economy is at its worst and Barrack Obama is not yet the president of the UnitedState. May be we should remind people of that.


Any president who inherits an economy such as this one we have here couldn't possibly fail to perform below the approval rate. Mr. Obama and his team will improve the state of the economy from where it is now, but for the economy to get to where former president Clinton left it ...is a dream worth dreaming about.


Our money doesn't worth the same anymore America, inflation has inflate it so much that now the bubble is at the edge of busting, we have been devalued. Like the comedian George Carlin once said, "The American dream is truly a dream because you must be at sleep to believe it".


Obama speech on foreign policy

More by this Author


Comments 47 comments

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

I'm hoping that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq will begin shortly after Obama's inauguration. A happy ending for this foolish, reckless and needless war is not likely either for Iraq or the United States. We have nearly bankrupted the U.S., destroyed Iraq, lost 4200 American soldiers and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis, severely damaged our reputation in the world, unleashed a religious war in in Iraq which has resulted in the loss of women's rights and an exodus of 50,000 Iraqi Christians.

What worries me now is that nobody seems to be questioning Obama's stated intention to send more troups to Afghanistan. IMHO, this may well be jumping out of the Iraq frying pan into the fire in Afghanistan.


robie2 profile image

robie2 7 years ago from Central New Jersey

Amen Ralph. I agree totally. Good huub, Coolbreezing. I'm with you on the chill pill too. Obama has a lot on his plate, but the more I see of him, the more I think he'll be up to the job. He's going to need all of us to help though, and he's bound to make a few mistakes and disappoint a few folks along the way, but won't it be nice to have a President who can actually speak the English language and who can pronounce the word "nuclear" properly?


rockinjoe profile image

rockinjoe 7 years ago from Standing right behind you!

Hi Coolbreezing. Nice hub. I believe Obama is going to succeed. This country and most of the word wants what he wants. He'll be getting cooperation from everyone. It's unfortunate that he has to pick up the pieces in Iraq. I like the fact that he'll be doubling the country's efforts in Afghanistan and finish up what the current administration failed to do.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

I hear you Ralph ....Obama's intention to send troops to Afghanistan could be seen as a substitution for the war in Iraq. People will question is there really a need to send troop to Afghanistan. Although Mr. Obama may be the commander in chief doesn't imply that his commands are not being challenge. This is why we the people must intervene to put in our 2 cents by making our voice heard. As I said before war is a business. Although Mr. Obama may have good reasons for shifting the war to Afghanistan doesn't remove from the fact that some people will not make money from it. It is only by keeping a war that certain transactions can be possible. War in a sense is an opportunity for some business to prosper. At times of war most media get lots of viewers which then creates new opportunity for advertisements. This is simply another way of looking at war because some people seems to think that war is ony about wrong or right.


JYOTI KOTHARI profile image

JYOTI KOTHARI 7 years ago from Jaipur

Coolbreezing ,

I do agree with you. I have written an article in three parts six months back about financial problem america. I have mentioned Iraq war as a major cause of financial problem along with some other causes.

You have rightly mentioned the things. Thanks for answering my request.

Jyoti Kothari


vrajavala profile image

vrajavala 7 years ago from Port St. Lucie

he's not President Obama and not even president elect. His name is Mr. Obama.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

thanks for your reply Vrajavala

Are you one of those people who seems to think that the president elect his not an American born and therefor can't become president of the United State under the American constitution?


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Vrajavala- Mr.Obama is a President Elect. And about the case "court unlikely to hear suits about Obama's citizenship"

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-f...


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

In order for Vrajavala's point to have been valid, he would have had to validate the definition of a naturally born citizen by making reference to the American constitution.  we would have to know what constitutes a naturally born citizen because I'm not sure the constitution gives any specification as to what naturally born imply. As of now we know that the president elect was born in Hawaii. If he was born in Kenya or Indonesia where is the birth certificate that proves it?  If you can't provide a birth certificate that proves otherwise then you don't have a case.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

An orderly withdrawal from Iraq is necessary, but it is far from clear what will be left behind. It may prove impossible for the country of Iraq to hold together as a unit. It may even prove that our legacy in the region will have been to turn Iraq into something resembling Afghanistan. As for committing more troops to Afghanistan, it can achieve nothing beneficial. We are already seeing that.


goldentoad profile image

goldentoad 7 years ago from Free and running....

Paraglider is absolutely correct. I think we are stuck there for the end of time. I think its better we recognize that, the country is always a breath away from civil war and that's gone on for centuries. But now, america will be held responsible, and no President wants to be blamed for that.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Thanks for your reply Paraglider

Well, it is true an orderly withdrawal is necessary but however what would be left behind will depends on our actions as well as the continuous attack of Al Qaeda towards our militants in Iraq. If they do gain total control of the oil that is left when we leave and they don't let this issue of Shias & Sunnis gets between their common ground to do good for the country, anything is possible. However, if we give total control of the oil that is left to one group its a guarantee that they'll be fighting for it. So in that sense yes it may be impossible for the country of Iraq to hold themselves together. As far as Afghanistan is concern we don't know whether or not it will be for nothing. As far as I'm concern it would be for the security of America to place troops in Afghanistan. You do that to prevent Al Qaeda from organizing. In a case like that you won't need as many soldiers as Iraq just enough for them to feel our present. Yes Goldentoad America will be held responsible just like all other empires have been held responsible for their actions.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

It is funny how close some people can get to the truth without realizing it. 

Paraglider says "It may even prove that our legacy in the region will have been to turn Iraq into something resembling Afghanistan" 

he is so close to the truth.  The Fallacy is assuming we failed at our mission.  You do not become as powerful as the United States by making rookie moves.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/index.htm

If you patently accept that oil is the motivation behind this war you have to patently accept that complete chaos and extended civil war had to be our goal from the outset. 

Mr. Obama is a wealthy man from a wealthy family his goals and ideals are not that different than any other wealthy man such as Bush, they only disagree on the methods not the outcomes.

TMG


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

TMG {{It is funny how close some people can get to the truth without realizing it.}}

That's rather patronising :) The US went into Iraq for oil, under a commander in chief who was incapable of strategic planning. The resulting chaos was not intentional but it was inevitable. The same commander in chief has squandered the US's power. It's possible his successor can redress the balance, but not if he goes for military adventurism in Afghanistan. You can't fight terrorists with an army.


Amanda Severn profile image

Amanda Severn 7 years ago from UK

There's no turning the clocks back. Iraq has been savaged by this war. I doubt America can resolve too many of the outstanding issues by staying in Iraq. The medicine for what ails that country (and possibly Afghanistan too) must come from within. The indiginous religious leaders need to stop preaching insurgence and to start preaching hope and renewal. If young men were no longer being persuaded to blow themselves and other people up,and started putting their energies into positive community projects there would be far less need for a military presence from abroad. I don't mean it to sound as though it's their fault rather than the occupying army's. It is of course about action and reaction, but somewhere a line has to be drawn if this is to stop.


Jamster2759 7 years ago

How about winning the war? There is nothing else..


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Jamster - America has, by any traditional standard, already won the war. The US has destroyed the infrastructure, killed far more than it has lost, and effected a regime change. Now they're hanging around waiting for someone to say thanks and it's not about to happen. They (and their allies) were wrong to invade. Now they don't know how to get out. They have created chaos. Unlike The MoneyGuy, I believe they 'achieved' this through incompetence at the top, not by design. But either way, it's a disaster.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

I make my statements mostly from my former personal stake in the war. I can't get into any real details, even though I quit that job once I realized what I was doing.

But, you have to realize Iraq was by far the strongest and most stable government in that region prior to 1991. Saddam bless his heart (over the years I came to root for him even though I knew he was going to get himself killed) was a true patriot he believed in Iraq above all else.

He did the unthinkable crime the same crime The Colonel in Libya committed. He believed the profits from his oil should go to his people, and nationalized his oil wells. That is why the standard of living was so high in Iraq. Trust me things were well there before we came. It was a marvel to visit those ancient cities.

That is why equal rights was nearly achieved in a Muslim country, Because Saddam maintained a relatively secular government and his country had money.

I could go on forever because I truly began to love what was going on there, the flagrant snubbing of the wealthy oil and banking interest.

Anyway, no government that is strong competent, sane, or rational will allow the large companies and the imperial governments that back them to do what the businesses want to do to Iraq, therefore the only logical conclusion is a weak disarrayed government that is easily sent into chaos or toppled as necessary. Plus, in Iraq we will have permanent bases so they will forever have that ominous threat hanging over them, whenever they have to decide something.

We tried the puppet dictator thing, and people like Castro, Saddam, The Ayatollah, and The Colonel proved that method will not work. So we are going for weak democracy as the new model for the Colonies.

TMG


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

TMG - Iraq was indeed doing well for itself before, but you'll have to admit it was not universally good for all Iraqis. Having said that, it is far worse off now than it was latterly (i.e. pre-invasion) under Saddam. I do see where you're coming from with your theory, but I don't think GWB is/was clever enough to run such a conspiracy. I still favour the incompetence explanation ;)


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Nice debate guys I'm loving it...

I think most Americans are now realizing that the Iraqis were better off before our arrival in Iraq. However, one can also argue that the people of Iraq would never have felt as free had we leave Iraq without removing Saddam from power. The Iraqis will be better off without Saddam in Power. Yes Saddam did care for his people to a certain extent but no one can say for sure that the citizen of Iraq weren't afraid to speak out. Although I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I do believe if we did anything good for these people its the removal of Saddam from Power. At least now if we don't get involve, they'll have the opportunity to elect their president of preference by way of fair election.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

ParaGlider,

We are not arguing the competence of GWB, I know for a fact he was never the brains behind this maneuver, just meerly the front man. I think if you look hard enough you can find that Cheney and Wolfowitz were working on this plan at least in the late 80's, maybe even longer. I just wasn't a part of the system then. So I didn't really know who the players were prior to about 1990.

As for all of the people in Iraq, yes there were some issues there, but those problems were created when Great Britain, the U.S., and Russia started remapping the globe in order to divide up the spoils of war.

So much of what we see in this region including the Pakistan/India thing has everything to do with these modern lines not jiving with ancient ancesteral territories. These lines were drawn based on resources and the equitable divisions between the victors.

Be very wary of the suffering of the people also, Saddam got the rap for using gas on the Kurds, but it was more likely a friendly fire accident from Iran who was the Kurds ally at the time.

Again this war was fueled on both sides by the U.S and Great Britain in order to keep Iraq and Iran torn down to a level easily managed. It is very cheap to do things this way. When the U.S put the Shaw in charge they did so for about 12,000 dollars in bribes. To the media, local gangs, and Political enemies.

The thing about Obama to watch for is his experts were mostly from the Clinton Admin, I served for the entire Clinton Admin. I can assure you we were very active in the Middle East at this time.

A quick search on the numbers of us servicemen killed during this time frame will show more died on the Clinton Watch than on the Bush Watch (I support neither, just a survivor of both). The rub from the Clinton side is those boys get no credit as they all died in training so to speak. I did six months under Clinton where I got shot at every single day only to come home to find out no one new about it.

Clinton was the master of media subversion, and some of his best men are with Obama. Take it for what it is worth. These are just some things I have observed.

TMG


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Coming from the eye witness himself, I think TheMoneyGuy has laid some good fundamentals here that we should give credit to. Don't you think Paraglider, he said and I believed it to be true “ this war was fueled on both sides by the U.S and Great Britain in order to keep Iraq and Iran torn down to a level easily managed.” I actually think that's a good strategy because those two countries would have save a lots of money by having the Iraqis fight the Iranians. It is only when people are faced with desperate means can you have them settle for an unfair price.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

It can't be a 'good strategy' to kill a few hundred thousand people simply on the grounds that you want their country weak. Besides which, there was no evidence that Iraq was strong militarily. Had they been, they would not have crumbled as they did. We all know about Cheyney & Wolfowitz's role, but GWB had the authority to prevent the invasion. While under international law he did not have a mandate to proceed. The buck stops with the commander in chief. We must hope that Obama at least tries to deal more humanely with the world.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

There's no such thing as a just war ...one country will be at fault. Its a good strategy in terms of creating conflict to have them fight against each other. Although I think what he said is true doesn't mean I agree with it. I only agreed with the strategy being practical. I don't like war but I also believed that war is inevitable as long as power is not centralized. I understand your argument with the GWB having the authority to stop the US from attacking Iraq but like I said before the people are often misled as to why we go to war. Like you said hopefully Barack Obama will take a different approach towards war. Although I doubt it, I don't condemn it to be impossible.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 7 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

There is no 'them'. There is only 'us'. Some wars are inevitable but that cannot be said of Iraq or Afghanistan.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

TMG, please document your assertion that more servicemen died under Clinton than Bush. That doesn't sound correct to me. The total in Iraq is 4400 American service men, not counting mercenary contractors and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis. Not to mention 50,000 Christians driven out of the country. The Iraq war was a colossal mistake for the U.S., and we wrecked Iraq to boot. Moreover, we in effect handed Iraq over to Iran because of the Iraq Shiite majority that will end up in charge. Moreover, the war was a magnet for terrorists from all over the Middle East and created a training ground for them, training which they will use when they return to where they came from. Afghanistan is likely to be even worse than Iraq in terms of lives lost and money wasted. The more troops we send there the higher the casualties will be. Military experts are saying it will take 10 years to do the job. I doubt that we are capable of doing the job, however that's defined. Our objective has escalated from "capture/kill Obama" to civilize and democratize the entire country. This is a foolish idea.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

Here are some numbers from the years I was on duty there. I pulled this from the DOD site. 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime. TMG


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

That's surprising. I wonder where they occurred. There can't have been that many accidental duty related deaths, deaths due to natural causes, etc.


Lgali profile image

Lgali 7 years ago

wait and see


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

Take a look at these which aren't close to your figures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualt...


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

War is inevitable as long as power is not centralized. Perhaps what is seen as a preventable war is one where power has been centralized. In which case the weaker country has agreed to compromise with the stronger one for the benefit of peace and the willingness to settle for what is given to them.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

Ralph,

The numbers I gave you aren't even for the periods of conflict, those are peacetime numbers with no conflict acknowledged, to get the total number dead on Clintons watch you have to add your Wiki Numbers to that, that was the point I was trying to make. 

These people will never get credit for their sacrifice.  I know you are trying to understand this, but the point is, you will not find this listed straight up.  You have to look at a DOD site, get the total casualties read what they were one by one, and realize the key words and tricky phrases. 

The point here is, you can be shot in Mosul and die in a car wreck in Saudia Arabia and no one is the wiser.  The only press report you will hear is this, "This training accident is under investigation."

The family will be compensated and for the most part accept whatever answer they are given, and life moves on.  This is why I call Clinton the Master of press subversion. 

Some pretty big things would be going on, and I would get home read, the Newspaper backlog from when I would be gone expecting headlines, and maybe I would find on page 15 in three sentences a brief blip that was barely recongnizable as the same event. 

I asked some folks a little higher up and the only answer I got was they control the flow of information.  (the Clintons tell what to print or else no one gets access to the House, the media being profit driven cannot afford not to have access, so they comply)

This is all the info I am willing to supply at this point I have gone to far, but I am passionate about this subject it is near and dear to me, and important that people understand. 

Like I said earlier I am no fan of Bush, life was pretty miserable in both Admins.  But, the warning I am making is they folks Obama is using are the same clowns I have dealt with before, I assure you folks will be fighting and dying and you will be none the wiser and you will probably defend your beliefs vehemently to the death and that is OK, because I know how both sides play.

TMG


Andrew Hawkley 7 years ago

Coolbreezing, I disagree that war is inevitable as long as power is not centralized. To get a war started you have to centralize power. Making an army involves centralizing manpower. Governments and police forces are centralized forms of power and nearly all are corrupt and evil. Peace can only ever really come through the spreading of power and self-governance.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for replying

I respect your argument. It's true that Government, military and the police force are all forms of centralized power. However, although they may be corrupt and evil they don't dived to engage in war between each other. Neither the Israelies or the British would engage in war with United State ...why? ….because there are one centralize structure of power. Any country who dare to attack Israel, United State will intervene and the same rule apply with England. Now think of it this way, if we did have one world government would we have had conflict among nations as we do now or would conflict be a matter of resolutions among leaders of nations.


Andrew Hawkley 7 years ago

I guess it's a case of absence of war does not mean peace. Britain and the US would not fight with eachother but on the other hand citizens of both countries suffer greatly at the hands of their governments. The more powerful Rome became the crueler it was.

There is also the phoney war on terror to consider. Unfortunately I think if we get a global government they will stage an extra-terrestrial assault.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Exactly, you're right ...it is a case of absence of war which doesn't imply that we'll have peace. This is why I said in my hub although centralizing power can help reduce conflict among nations, it's not clear what effect it would have had on the people. It's possible that under one world government corporations could have found the need for private military. As some of us know already ...Black Water....which got me thinking now that perhaps its not government that's the problem but rather corporations. Corporations are the reason why we have wars.

 


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

--Benito Mussolini


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

TMG, you lost me there. If you provide a link to the "DOD site" I would like to take a look. Your figures don't make sense. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willy" for nothin'!


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

As far as economy was concerned didn't Clinton take a deficit from Bush Sr. era and turned it over to surplus by the time he left. Now again we have a huge deficit and hope Obama turns it to surplus (Let's hope for the best and hope is all many have left to hang on).


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

CW, yes, that's correct. The first balanced budget since WWII, as I recall.

TMG, I bet your figures include all the veterans dying in VA hospitals of old age!


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

This is the best I can do as you will not have access to the source to derive these numbers. This is a summary given by a Retired General and has been reprinted a few times I am sure you can find it if you search for it. It is very hard to get an exact number that includes special operations deaths (A favorite choice of force for Slick Willy) some will argue that the active duty end strength was larger and skews the number, but most of the draw down took place in the Operational units of the Navy which almost nullifies this argument. As they have suffered few casualties under either admin. It is as close to an acknowledgement to those times as I think we will ever get.

"But to put the Iraq / Afghanistan war deaths in perspective, we can compare the number of military deaths during the "peacetime" Clinton administration [1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996 and another 3,198 active duty deaths during the second four year term (1997 - 2000; about 800 active duty deaths per year)]. The total military deaths for the eight years of the Clinton "peacetime" years was 7615. This fact is not identified to criticize the Clinton years as Commander-in Chief. In comparison, more military were killed in "peacetime" in first 5 years (5217 deaths) under the Clinton administration than have been killed in the five years of the Bush administration while at war (3964 deaths).

Death of any of our service men and women in peace or in war is sad but an occupational hazard understood by all that serve. In peacetime, deaths from intensive training, routine intervention, special operations, etc., are not identified as war deaths. However, their service were no less dangerous or important. The military has served to protect and to defend American interests throughout the world without headlines or the respect of the American people during peacetime. But to their loved ones and to those of us who did not die while serving, their deaths in peacetime as well as in war are etched in our memory and hearts."


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

As for the Budget,

That is the power of the Press the White House makes a Press release say Yeah we balanced the budget.  Everybody lives happily ever after, meanwhile back at the motel!!

The CBO that year calculated it at a 200 billion dollar deficit, no media report on that little tidbit, another Urban Myth for the Myth Busters.

Ah, But that was just a prediction we have history on our side and we can calculate.  Actual deficit 415 Billion dollars. (Cato Institute)

The Balanced Budget doesn't pass the Snopes test.

TMG


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

As far as Veterans dying in the VA of Old Age,

That number is getting close to about 1 a minute. around 1450 a day. So in about a weeks time that number is more than the active duty death in any of the last two administrations. This is due to the Large number of WWII veterans that are at that age.

A Couple of Years ago I carried one of the Pearl Harbor Survivors onto a ship for a tour he thought it would be the last time he would ever see one as he was about 107. I didn't know, but in Chula Vista they have a Museum and one of The Largest Pearl Harbor Survivor Associations.

It is very humbling to hear their stories. One of the men I spoke to was from Oklahoma serving on the USS Oklahoma and he told me that the only reason he was alive was the bomb that hit blew him off the deck into the water. Taking off a good piece of his ass at the same time and all these years later he still tears up with a little survivors guilt.

If anyone is making a trip to San Diego and have never been to a VA Hospital give me a call and I will take you on a tour of a VA or to the PHSA museum.

Followed by a tour of the Naval Medical Center San Diego, I will show you what Old Veterans about to die look like, and I will show you what young men with no arms and legs look like, and when were done we can debate politics if you still have the stomach.

TMG


ALI STAR 7 years ago from Canada,Ontario,Toronto,Markham

I think the US needs to focus more on Afghanistan. Right now the US controls only 30 percent of Afghanistan. The rest is taliban property, if the US keeps on going like this, then it'll be vietnam all over again in afghanistan. If the troops have to be sent overseas, Afghanistan needs em. Nice article btw.


JYOTI KOTHARI profile image

JYOTI KOTHARI 7 years ago from Jaipur

Dear Cool,

Thanks for answering my request. You have nicely answered the same. Thumbs up.

Jyoti Kothari


outdoorsguy profile image

outdoorsguy 6 years ago from Tenn

you do realize that next door to Irag is the country that funds sixty percent of the terrorist groups in the world. a county that routinely spouts Genocide, and rattlers their sabers at every one especially the US. the Same country that killed over a hundred thousand children in a ten year war with Iraq sending the kids in waves with nothing but a holy headband to protect them from bullets, bombs and gas.

the only saving grace at the moment is that this same country seems to be on the verge of tearing itself apart. so if we are lucky they might not attempt to spread thru force of arms and establish yet another Extremist government that will support terrorism.

Sadly, I doubt that with out fighting a real war not the police actions we seem determined to fight. we have no real chance of stopping the spread yet. so lets hope that sooner or later the propaganda the middle east Princes and extremist Imans pump out blaming the west for their poverty will be seen for what it is. a bloody power grab to keep the believers from rioting against their masters.


mani_shah55 5 years ago

War is not the solution war is the begining of problems.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working