Firstly, let me point out that I am a full supporter of the continued efforts in Afghanistan. Whilst I am still slightly cynical of the possible underlying motives, there can be no doubt that the country under Taliban rule was one which seriously oppressed its people and was (and still is) a school of extreme radicalisation or a "breeding ground of terror". If parts of the western world wanted to genuinely attempt the impossible task of tackling islamic extremism at the root then Afghanistan was the place to go. Not that I believe it is a war which can be won, neither do I think that it will eradicate extreme anti-Western views. There can be no denying that the country sheltered Al-Quada leaders and agents. A worthy cause? Probably. Worth it? Possibly not.
What I do not and cannot ever understand however is the purpose of the war in Iraq, the benefits of a war in Iraq, and why there are still ardent supporters of the action which was undertaken there. Whilst we all worry about our finances, in both the US and UK, and the national debt, here are some numbers for your consideration:
US Cost of War In Iraq: $727,336,659,883
UK Cost of War In Iraq: $140,000,000,000 (approx)
Cost Per Capita US: $2369
Cost Per Capita UK: $2295
National Debt USA: $13060bn
National Debt UK: $916bn
I wonder how much impact the Iraq war has had on the state of the US and UK economies?
The long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans is estimated at $350bn+.
Dick Cheney estimated that the cost of war to the US would be $80bn and then $10bn per year for a period of time afterwards for the recovery of Iraq.
The UK had estimated costs of just $7bn for their role, which was initially to be a small one.
Whilst our governments and media frantically discuss public service cuts, our friends lose our jobs, our families risk home repossession, why is so little focus placed on the effects of the Iraq war to our economies and spending power?
It is clear that the normal working people in both countries have suffered as a direct result of this war, and it will be the taxpayer who continues to pay the interest on these spiralling debts. We will be paying for this war for the rest of our lifetime and probably our childrens lifetime.
My question to you, anybody, is whether you think it was worth it.
Was it worth it?
The people of Iraq are suffering. The people under Magabe are suffering. For a one world, people need to be free.
I dont want fellow human beings suffer just because of where they are born.
The whole middle east mess is our fault and we should stay the hell away from it.
The only thing we should have to do with them is to write the check for the oil. When the price becomes too high maybe then we will look to alternative sources for energy.
Absolutely not! The people of Iraq are worse off than when Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, was in power. Moreover, we have pushed Iraq into the hands of Iran.
wait, you said WAS.....the war is over?
I agree with Ralph Deeds, we have done nothing but hurt ourselves and worse, our neighbors and worse than that, both of our children
Hi Daniel.Did you know that 2009 stats from the VA say 18 Vets commit suicide every day..18x365...25% of the homeless are Vets.The walking wounded aren't even counted.Physical and mental damage to our kids can't be undone.We don't need large numbers of troops to fight terrorists.We need specialised teams like the Navy Seals to quietly Kill terrorist leaders like they did in Nam.If the leaders keep coming up dead very few people will want the job.To fight Terror you must inspire terror.To kill a snake...you cut off it's head.imo
Clearly the Iraq War was not worth ! Iraq remains very unstable, as is evidenced by the daily bomb blasts and the inability to form a government. It is also quite telling that Iran as you rightly stated has been embolden as it is now given a controlling stake in Iraq.
It is also quite noticeable that the US in now less influential in the region because of this war. Iran certainly did not waste anytime in realizing that countries like Iraq, are vulnerable to attack from the US, if they do not have WMDs, so they are relentlessly marching toward the capability to acquire them. All in all, this is the outcome of the recklessness of the Bush Administration.
The American Public does bear a large part of the blame for this state of affairs, as the level of naievity was and remains inexcusable.
In the words of Maddow who interviewed a troop their. When she asked, "Well what if it doesn't work?" He replied, "Then we would have given them their best possible chance."
I also don't believe it can be 'won' because ultimately it is the Afgan people who will have to make it work. Many are bitter about having US troops there regardless of the mission... to give them government that will work for the people and drive out the Taliban.
Some seem willing and they are training many men and woman but I don't think it is enough. Who is to say that the government won't turn bad?
Who is to say that the Taliban wont become more dreadful with them?
I say it is time to leave. We have given them everything they need and if they don't respond then there isn't anything anyone can do for them.
If they cannot become educated, be willing to do what is right, to stand up against those ruthless people that is tearing their county and others apart, then no one else should die trying to reach what seems like an impossible dream.
Maddow says, "Money yes, lives no!" That does make sense. Money is money, it comes and goes but lives cannot be replaced and the "war", no it isn't a war.
COIN- a fiasco.
I never wanted us there in the first place.And no it was a complete waste !
Absolutely NOT. If there was an upside it was the susequent oil contracts that have come out of the "NEW" Iraq. Of course the US and UK didn't get any of that. It all went to Russia and China. That's a goulish perspective I know.
In my opinion, the war in Iraq was a complete mistake, and extremely counterproductive in its effects.
And I'm eating crow when I say so; I supported it at the time because I well knew how brutal Saddam Hussein was, and was persuaded that it was worth it to prevent him from acquiring nuclear weapons--which I was told at the time might happen within 6 months.
Since finding out that this was never in fact a realistic possibility, and that the Administration should have known that, based upon information we now know that they had available, I have felt quite bitter about the whole debacle. It certainly has contributed mightily to our economic malaise today, as without it government would have had far more ability to stimulate the economy when it needed it most.
Moreover, it poisoned the effort--if "effort" I should call it--in Afghanistan, which I agree is a whole different kettle of fish. Had a serious reconstruction effort been made there, this might have been so much better a world today. Like the poster, I still support the efforts being made in Afghanistan. But the probability of success there is much lower now than it needed to be.
Worth what to whom?
Because we weakened the Taliban, the sick tradition of Bacha Bazi has made a comeback in Afghanistan, and I'm willing to bet that young male children would disagree with you concerning it being a "good thing" that we've done by enabling DynCorp, and American fascist police corporation throw Bacha Bazi sex parties featuring little Afghan boys for sale.
That's one perspective from the UK who is sinking in their own debt.
Is it "worth it" to destroy the economic livelihood of an entire nation to chase after a few supposed terrorists?
The war on Terror is created by the United States Government.
You have to ask yourself why these people are so pissed off at the United States. The answers lie in the way the United States has treated these people over the past 50 years.
MikeNV, thank you for your continued reference to our well document national debt problems.
I would like to point out however that your own country, too, is also sinking in their own debt.
This is emphasised by dividing your national debt by the size of your population. Equivalent to $42542 per capita, against a UK debt which currently equates to $15016 per capita.
I think that you may be confusing yourself with our very high deficit. That means that our debt is rising very quickly. It is estimated that the debts would have to rise at the current rate for 13 years before we would be at serious risk of losing our AAA credit rating like Greece.
It has become neccessary for the UK to reduce their budget deficit, something which is currently being undertaken by the new elected government following our national election in May 2010.
Thank you for your concern, but the cash flow problems in the UK represent an effort to reduce our deficit - not because of our debts being too high at this point in time.
GDP per capita in the US was $48000 in 2008, the GDP per capita in the UK in 2008 was $43500.
Whilst both countries have very serious national debt problems, I trust that this clarifies our position in a global context.
If the UK is 'sinking' then the US is almost fully submerged. Personally I hope that both pull themselves out of the current mess very quickly. Our financial markets are very closely linked, the closest linked in the world, so I am hopeful that they can emerge together.
The continued struggle of the US will do nothing for the UK, and neither will it do anything for my pension funds.
I don't think it was worth it and I don't think Afghanistan is worth it. I am content to let those people kill each other. I fully supported the air strikes against Afghanistan in the attempt to kill Bin Laden, unfortunately we let him get away. That should have been the end of it.
And why would that be, when there was a journalist that made him an interview in his own bunker ? Something wrong with the Secret Service ?
I tend to agree Lib... also the fact that we have forfieted the game over there, Afghanistan, and they know it.
So... I think if we find Osama as we move along, we should kill him, meanwhile we need to root out the homegrows amongs us and defend our borders.
And yes thier is something wrong with the secret service and the Cia and the NSA, there are no standing kill on sight orders on anyone... everyone they find they have to take forever and a day to verify and check with the politicians to make sure they agree.
We will not win a war again until we and our politicains understand that we train and educate officers and generals to run wars and win them for us.
Too many arm-chair generals in out Govt. Sens and Reps just don't get it... stay the hell out the way and the Military and our Intelligence Agencies fight the War and win.
Sine the day after WWII those idiots have played politics with our Military and it's might... they, politicains, have screwed us over and over and walked away from thier messes, pointing blame on the Military and others.
What a bunch of loosers.
All wars are worth the money a few get grom them
Meaning they are worth nothing.
People suffering it's all you get from wars.
Please accept my apologies, the national debt of the UK actually equates to $21258 per capita - I had taken the GDP figure and forgetting to convert to USD.
But the same principle applies. This remains a much lower figure than the US.
I have always believed that the Iraq War was a mistake - a stupid mistake at that!!
Instead of consolidating in Afghanistan, the shift in focus to Iraq set back efforts in Afghanistan by many years (how many is open to question, but I'd say at least by 5 plus years).
The exit from Afghanistan could've been faster had it not been for the Iraq War.
Don't think it was worth it at all!! I don't think Saddam posed as much of a danger to the world, as was projected! There are other dictators in the region too - so what was new about him? To me, there never was a good justification to go to war in Iraq.
They should have just focused on Afghanistan. That's a country, if allowed to slip into the hands of Al-Qaeda and Taliban, that would pose a threat to the world at large.
I think the drone bombing is the best solution and get our people back home. With the servellance capabilities we have the Taliban would still have to hide in holes and caves while we could get on with our lives.
Sadly, drones aren't effective in holiding territory or preventing the Taliban from regrouping and terrorizing the local populace into submission.
Drones are good for targeted killings of Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists, but they won't help in any other way than that.
If drones were a solution to everything, the troops would have long pulled out.
Sadly I think the mission has changed from "Get the Taliban and Al Qaeda" to "Reshape Iraq and Afghanistan in our own image".
I think targeting and killing the enemy rather than converting the locals is more attainable and is what we set out to do in the first place. Unlike God, reshaping civilizations in our own image should be left alone by mortals.
We have to agree on what the solution is before we set out to prove we can. When America invades a country to change it we never leave. Besides Viet Nam where we were thrown out we have set up and maintained bases and a clear profile in basically all of the countries we have invaded which is at the heart of the issue.
I don't understand why we take on the impossible task of maintaining our imperialistic presence in these countries such as Germany, Japan, Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan other than providing the military industrial complex reason to exist and make money for the contractors.
Terrorizing a few miscreants in the desert is fine with me as that is the type of warfare they are performing on us. Whether it is completely successful is up to the spinners and will cost less in human and monetary losses.
There were never any Taliban or Al Quada in Iraq. That is the point, the Iraq war was unjustified.
I agree there weren't any there until the US invaded it. Guess who else joined the party? Iran!
Way to go US on that country building thingy.
These wars are a quagmire that toppeled the USSR and we did not learn a damn thing from it. A well equiped guerilla force can hold the biggest of armies at bay for an insurmountable amount of time. Why not do the same to them. A machine can hunt forever while a human can tire in a much shorter time period. Let the machine do its work and save lives and money.
Viet Nam? Iraq? Afghanistan? How many times must we reprove history?
Outsourcing the fighting to 'contractors' or machines misses the point. The war is not going to be won because the population perceive the West as invaders and infidels.
The use of machines makes this worse because they believe that the Western soldiers are too cowardly to fight up close and personal. Militarily, using technology might seem like a good idea, but it doesn't create the respect needed to have successful negotiations afterwards.
I have been reading that the West is trying to have some sort of limited negotiations with the Taliban and that it is not working. Why?
1. The taliban are fragmented, there is no one central figure who speaks for all of them.
2. The taliban do not see that there is any need for negotiations. Their situation has not materially altered since the war started. The West are negotiating because they cannot sustain a long campaign militarily and economically. The taliban know this, all they have to do is to keep doing what they are doing and the West will leave.
3. The taliban do not regard the use of drones with awe, they regard it with contempt. The drones do not do serious damage to their own war efforts, so that are little more than a minor irritant and a a great way to motivate more people to support them.
Afghanistan has always been a 'graveyard of empires', and it will be again.
Only Ghenghis Khan ever came close to breaking the Afghans, and I don't think any of the major powers have the stomach to do what he did to achieve their aims.
From what I read, the war paid for itself through Iraqi oil revenues, the Iraqi people greeted us as liberators, and Bin Laden was captured within 6 months of the start of the war.
I've been very busy since 2003; anyone got time to check my facts?
Sadaam Hussein was captured within months and has been executed. Bin Laden is still at large, believed to be somewhere in Pakistan.
As I've pointed out Iraqis were better off before our invasion. I heard a Baghdad businessman complaining on NPR a couple of days ago that he only has electricity 9 hours a day. Half the Christians have been driven out of the country. We ignited a civil war in the country between Sunnis and Shiites. Saddam Hussein kept the lid on sectarian violence among Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. He also protected women's rights against the religious fanatics who want to deny them education and the right to work outside the home. Moreover, our actions have greatly increased the influence of Iran over Iraq. Our invasion attracted terrorists from all over the Middle East and created a training ground for them. Saddam Hussein pretty much kept the terrorists out of Iraq. (He was far from being a nice guy, but the world is full of tyrants.)
To ask if something is 'worth it', you have to look at the amount actually invested (money, time, energy, lives) against the amount that was intended to be invested and look at the results achieved versus the results intended.
We know, roughly, the amounts that were intended to be invested and we think we have a good idea about the amounts actually invested to date. We have absolutely no idea what the real intended result of this war was, since, even before operations started, the premise which we were 'sold' this war on shifted. When Saddam's connected to 9/11 was discredited, we then got the story of the weapons of mass destruction. When that was discredited, we got the story that Saddam was a bad guy who needd to be removed.
How are we supposed to judge a return on investment when we don't know what the intended results of the investment was?
I suspect that the original actors and the people currently responsible have also lost sight of their objectives, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why everything is going wrong. This is what happened in Vietnam.
My view is that a war is only 'worth it' when there is a clear, present and immediate danger to your own country which cannot be solved by other means. If I had been a Russian in 1941, the war against Nazi Germany would have become 'worth it' the moment the Wehrmacht crossed the Soviet border. If I had been an American at Pearl Harbour, the war would have become 'worth it' when the first plane came in and started attacking the fleet.
The 2nd Gulf War did not have that immediate connection with such a danger. The connection with 9/11 was shown to be non existent and, as a response to the destruction of 2 or 3 buildings and the deaths of approximately 3000 people perpetrated by completely different people, it seems to be a disproportionate response.
If the objective of the war was to prevent this hapeneing again, I would suggest that this has been a very poor investment indeed, since it has probably motivated more people to commit acts of terrorism and so made them more likely.
Not too soon to say it. Study history: the long lasting ramifications of any high-profiled, major war embeds the evidence just 3-5 years after its initiation. If within 5-6 more years Iraq reverts back to its radical Islamic nature, then the war was shit to begin with. However, another element involved in that outcome could be the "involvement" of the Bush Administration. Maybe the Obama Admin. or Clinton Admin. could have had a more positive effect with the handling of the war. All in all, the underlying omen in this is the "negativity" the Bush Admin. garnered for it.
Can I make the point how conspicuous the absence of consideration of Iraqi deaths is in this thread?
How can we possibly hope to address the value of the Iraqi project without considering the human element?
There is a moral dimension here which eludes monetisation. That it is more difficult to quantify does not negate the necessity of doing so.
Any talk of the "cost" of war devoid of the consideration of its human impact is hollow indeed.
I appreciate - and agree - with much of the sentiments here. But to consider the "cost" of this, or any war, in dollar terms alone speaks volumes of the regard for the human life of others, in our collective subconscious.
In that spirit then:
I'd say no, it was an unprovoked, war of aggression, secret WMD development is not an act of war nor did Saddam have anything to do with Jihadist groups.
"it was an unprovoked, war of aggression"
No, it was not.
"Saddam have anything to do with Jihadist groups"
Of course he did.
Actually Saddam hated Jihadist groups because they threatened his regime.
The thing is you receive what you give. If you respond with war to everything, that is what you will receive. It's that simple. If we choose to be a warrior nation, then we need to be responsible for all the things that come with it and not complain about them.
(I'm not saying you specifically are complaining about it however )
"Actually Saddam hated Jihadist groups because they threatened his regime."
Forgot about the 'reward' he paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Saddam was attacking the US? I don't think there is any proof of his gunships appearing on the horizon.
wepons of mas destruction - never any single piece of evidence found - a lie of huge proportion.
unprovoked - yes it was.
Chemical weapons are not WMD's? Interesting thought.
Apart from the fact that the US has mountains of chemical weapons, and used them in Vietnam. The WMD were claimed to be those that threatened the US - lies, fabrications and pure bul@@@t !
Ignorance is exactly what your government and mine used as its weapon of mass destruction - lies and more lies, then turned round and said oops! but anyway it was kinda justified. And the ignorant did nothing, I am ashamed of our countries blatant and unwarranted aggression, but more saddened by the morons who suck up the lies and bull and don't have the b@lls to stand up and do something.
Which - once again - really means, "You must agree with me 'cause I say so!!!"
How can you read that in what I said, maybe too many long words?
I clearly gave an opinion, backed with why - you might try it instead of childish comments some time.
Repetition is one of your finer points. Are you related to KFlippin?
I'm honored, name recognition and name dropping...such a clear clue when such occurs that well identifies the worried blowhards of this world.......reaching, reaching for someone to point to to distract from their bogus issues. Again, I'm so very honored. (Clearer now?)
So was your skimmer sent to the Gulf Coast and allowed entre'? (Was it?)
saddam was in blatant violation of the terms agreed upon at the end of the first Gulf War. It was therefore NOT unprovoked.
So it warranted the mass destruction of the whole of Iraq !! grow up.
Israel is in blatant violation of many international treaties....
Is this then provoking "war"?
The settlements are illegal, as is Nuclear weapons. As was the massacre Operation Cast Lead. As were the flotilla murders.....on and on.
When does Israel get invaded???
As I recall, Bush called it a preemptive attack or war and cooked the intelligence alleging WMD in order to convince a gullible majority led by the NY Times and the TV networks to support it. The senators who voted against the invasion deserve a medal. Both of our Michigan senators, Levin and Stabenow had the good sense to vote against it. Here's a list of the senators who voted against the war resolution:
Note that Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island was the only Republican who voted against the Invasion of Iraq.
But we often hear how the war was supported by the democrats from the usual suspects here in the forums, Ralph! Are you suggesting they are uninformed? LOL!
Far be it for me to accuse any Hubbers of being uninformed. I will accuse the Democrats who voted for the invasion of being naive and MIS-informed (by Bush, Cheney, Tenet and their henchmen including the parade of "military/foreign policy experts to which we were treated in the months leading up to the war, many of whom were on the payrolls of military contractors).
Correct Ralph! Anyone can see who stood to profit by the war the most. It's strange how this war didn't help our economy like many have in the past. I never understood how the US could offer tax free salaries to mercenaries or private contractors either.
Wouldn't the true patriots and America lovers want to help out by doing the job for regular salaries and pay their fair share in taxes? Or was it just a bribe to get greedy people to do the dirty work under the guise of patriotism? Hmmm.
I think Osama bin Laden is dead, or we would have seen more of him.
Also, I think the war was worth it to those very few that profited from it, whether it be for money or to further their agendas. We are all pawns in this because we don't want to be informed. It's easy to not want to be informed when we are so focused on making ends meet and paying our bills and taxes. However, there is no other choice. Being informed will make it easier on all of us in the long run.
The war with Iraq was worth it till Saddam Hussein was killed mercilessly. Because US intended to remove him from there. After that, what for the Americans are there? They should have withdrawn immediately after Saddam's killing.
saddam was tried, convicted, and executed by the duly elected government of Iraq. He more than deserved the sentence Iraq's legal system handed down to him.
the pics I saw showed a gang of masked thugs at a hanging party - supported by your government.
Calling the Iraq government that executed Saddam Hussein "duly elected" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
I think he meant to write "dully" elected, Ralph!
American puppet government would be more accurate.
Watch out, you'll be labeled an "America hater" if you keep using facts to support your views.
"Calling the Iraq government that executed Saddam Hussein "duly elected" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?"
Not in the least. Millions of brave Iraqis put their very lives at risk to elect that government. Forgot so soon?
You mean like the Vichy government in Nazi-occupied France during World War II? Calling a government "duly elected" in a country occupied by a foreign army is questionable.
Yes it is, the Vichy government collaborated with the Nazis. You imported the government of Iraq from exiles and imposed them on the Iraqi people.
Is the Iraq government which hanged Saddam Hussein duly elected? If so, by whom? Was that govt. elected by Iraqi people or by American people?
It was a very very sad moment for the whole humanity that a dictator, who ruled over an ancient country for 23 years was tried in a comedy-court and sentenced to death. It was more painful to see an Iraqi man leading Saddam to the gallows. Each of those who were responsible for that tragedy should place themselves in Saddam's place and imagine how they would feel.
Saddam Hussein was the only ruler who led a secular government in a religious fanatic Arab world. He was the only guarantee for stability in that region. His only sin is that he fired missiles into Israel, unnecessarily.
I basically agree except that "sending missiles unnecessarily into Israel" was far from his only sin.
"Is the Iraq government which hanged Saddam Hussein duly elected? If so, by whom? "
Yes, duly elected by the brave Iraqi people.
"His only sin is that he fired missiles into Israel, unnecessarily."
Why don't you find a few Iraqis and ask them if that was his only sin?
Punishing the erring Iraqi people by the Iraqi government is their internal matter and Americans have no business to interfere in that. What Mr.Saddam did to outside world should only be taken while analysing the personality of a leader. Thinking that Americans are empowered to get into each and every problems of a country will result in creating more enemies for America.
If they were sincere in doing good to humanity, they should have intervened in Tien-en-men square massacre in June, 1989. Hundreds of thousands were killed by Chinese. They should have intervened while thousands of students were killed by tanks and heavy artillery in Dacca on 25-3-1971 by the then Pakistani government. (The tanks were imported from America by the Pak govt.)
Because Iraq is a small country, and also as there was no unity in the Arab world, America entered Iraq, just to pump out oil from their wells. Will they be able to enter any other country like this? Americans want a big name for a small work.
All the brave Iraqi people are fighting to get America out. You may find a few Iraqi fighters and ask them what America is doing in their country.
"Punishing the erring Iraqi people by the Iraqi government is their internal matter and Americans have no business to interfere in that. What Mr.Saddam did to outside world should only be taken while analysing the personality of a leader. Thinking that Americans are empowered to get into each and every problems of a country will result in creating more enemies for America. "
You need to translate that into English before I can respond.
"Tien-en-men square massacre in June, 1989. Hundreds of thousands were killed by Chinese"
Nowhere near that many.
"America entered Iraq, just to pump out oil from their wells"
That is incorrect.
"All the brave Iraqi people are fighting to get America out. "
That is incorrect.
Every correct thing seems incorrect to him. Traditional American approach!
America sees everything through telescope. But we in the east see everything with our own eyes.
My comments should be taken in the right sense and the subject should never be sidelined just for argument. It should never go personal, which means you have nothing to argue in the subject.
The points of your statement that were in clear enough English to understand were simply incorrect, and that is why I said so. Nothing personal intended.
""Tien-en-men square massacre in June, 1989. Hundreds of thousands were killed by Chinese"
Nowhere near that many."
I'm not sure that tens of thousands of people could fit into Tiannamen square...
""America entered Iraq, just to pump out oil from their wells"
That is incorrect."
The fact is, nobody but Bush, Cheney, et al really know why the US invaded Iraq. At first it was because Iraq was violating the UN's directives, but the UN didn't authorize an attack, so that reason went out the window. Then it was because of the WMDs that Saddam had pointed at his neighbors. But it turns out that he didn't actually have any left from the ones we sold him back in the 80s. Then it was because Saddam was oppressing and torturing the Iraqi people, but then some Americans did it too, so that reason was out. Then it was to give Freedom (tm) to the Iraqi people, but since "freedom isn't free," that never made any sense. And then al-qaida showed up in Iraq, taking advantage of the instability and the power vacuum we created when we invaded and deposed the government without a plan for what to do next. That worked out nicely for a reason to stay in Iraq, but since the reason didn't exist before we invaded, it doesn't work for a legitimate casus belli.
Just because we haven't been able to accomplish the pumping of oil out of Iraq's wells doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason W and co chose to invade.
""All the brave Iraqi people are fighting to get America out. "
That is incorrect."
No, not all of them. Some of them are trying to get America to leave via the political process. And if the US stays for one hour beyond the time Iraq's sovereign government tells us we need to leave, then we're not liberators but conquerors in fact.
"the UN didn't authorize an attack"
Yes they did.
In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.  Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Resolutions 660 and 678 were adopted in 1990 over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. They had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Resolution 1441 was adopted in 2002. It established a WMD inspection regime, but did not authorize an invasion of Iraq. Moreover, it was based on false intelligence reports alleging that Iraq was pursuing the development of WMD. Here's a link to the text of the resolution.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre … s1441e.pdf
Please try to be more factual in your assertions. I don't have time to track them down and correct them.
Those are facts and those are revelant resolutions and were recognized as such in the run-up to the invasion. You can debate their application, as some in the UN have, but you cannot dismiss them. And it seems you need to go back and read them more carefully in any case. Also, using the proclamations of a guy whose son was profitting from black market oil deals with saddam before the war doesn't really bolster your position.
None of the resolutions you cited authorized the invasion of Iraq as you claimed. Now, seven years later, almost no thoughtful or knowledgeable person claims, as you do, that invading Iraq was a good idea or justified by any UN resolution or the facts about the country. Many if not most of the Senators who succumbed to the Bush lies about WMD and the support for the invasion by the mainstream media including the Washington Post and NYTimes and TV networks, have said they acknowledge that invading Iraq was a tragic, costly mistake.
The resolutions cited were discussed and recognized as relevant to the issue at the time, though there was some disagreement. You may debate their application but cannot dismiss their relevance.
The "no thoughtful or knowledgeable person" bit is just a cheap attempt at dismissal akin to "cause I say so!" and is not worth further consideration.
I'm reminded by the above Wikipedia article that a majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq invasion resolution. In the Senate 21 voted against the invasion including one Republican, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island.
Since that time many Senators and Congressmen have said, knowing what they know now, they wouldn't have voted in favor of the resolution.
Opinion in the U.S. Congress leading up to the Iraq War generally favored a diplomatic solution, while supporting military intervention should diplomacy fail. The October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House by 296 to 133. Leading opponents of the resolution included Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy.
As the war progressed and the insurgency began to develop into what many believe is a civil war in Iraq, Congressional support for the Iraq campaign began to wane. A flashpoint came on November 17, 2005, when Representative John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran who voted to authorize the war and is widely regarded as an ardent supporter of the military, introduced a resolution calling for U.S. forces in Iraq to be "redeployed at the earliest practicable date" to stand as a quick-reaction force in U.S. bases in neighboring countries such as Kuwait.
Since the introduction of the Murtha resolution, many members of Congress, particularly in the Democratic Party, have rallied around the strategy of a phased troop withdrawal. In the 2007 Congressional session, critics of the war have sought to tie additional war appropriations to a specific timetable for withdrawal. On March 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed an Iraq spending bill that requires that troops begin withdrawing in March 2008 and that most US forces be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008. This bill is still under debate in the U.S. Senate.
Congressional critics of the war have also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq. On January 10, 2007, Senator Dick Durbin gave the Democratic response to this plan by saying: "We have given the Iraqis so much... Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation.""
Public opinion shifted from support to opposition to the Iraq invasion.
I'll do better than that, I'll ignore it. It is not a legitimate source.
"Just because we haven't been able to accomplish the pumping of oil out of Iraq's wells doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason W and co chose to invade."
The fact that what some political speculators claimed never happened and cannot be proven AND is directly contradicted by those (many) involved in making the decision doesn't seem to dissuade the ardently partisan from insisting on baseless claims.
Sab Oh, in your opinion, why did the U.S. invade Iraq?
For a number of reasons, including its continued violation of UN resolutions, support for terrorist activities, and because it was a leading source of instability in a region whose instability led to a grave threat to US and global security. The fact that saddam was a murderous tyrant also played a role.
By your theory, we should have invaded Israel which has violated more UN resolutions than any other country:
Accountability and our nation’s credibility require that Israel be forced to comply with international law, especially if the United States continues to press its case against Iraq.
During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.
On June, 14, 1967, through Resolution No. 237, the Security Council called upon Israel to "ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." In subsequent resolutions, the Security Council deplored Israel for the delay in its implementation of Resolution 237. Yet, Israel continued to defy the world community, including the United States. The Security Council, in the face of Israel's defiance, passed no less than five subsequent resolutions demanding that Israel comply but to this day, thirty five years after June 14, 1967, the defiance continues.
On March 22, 1979, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 446. Israel’s violation of Resolution 446 (sections quoted below) represents the most flagrant violation of Israel, not only of the UN but also the stated policy of our government under successive administrations:
(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
Mr. President, we have cited just a few Security Council resolutions that pertain to Israel. Space and your indulgence do not permit us to cite, in this short letter, the volumes of the other resolutions that have been ignored or brazenly violated by Israel. Therefore, we have compiled in the attached document a list of the UN Security Council resolutions which Israel has violated and/or continues to violate. If Israel’s actions in response to these resolutions do not "flaunt the will of the world community of nations," we do not know what would. And if Israel’s actions do not qualify it as a "rouge state" then reasonable, informed citizens of this great nation, and the entire community of nations, are left to reach the unavoidable conclusion that our government continues to apply very different standards for Israel and for all other nations. Just as no man is above our domestic laws, no state should be left to disregard well-established principles of international law. The acquisition of territory by force and the use of torture are just two clear examples of the shameful records shared by Iraq and Israel.
Mr. President, we take seriously the fact that Israel has defied, and made a mockery of, not only the United Nations but also this great country for we are one of the permanent members of the Security Council. All of these resolutions mentioned above passed with some measure of United States support, or they would not have passed.
Israel even stands in defiance of your own recent public demand that Israel withdraw its forces from the West Bank. In a televised statement on April 9, 2002 you demanded that "Israel withdraw its troops from the West Bank without delay." Israel not only ignored your call, but has actually intensified its illegal military occupation. If you are not willing to force Israel to comply with even your own demands, how do you expect to maintain the credibility necessary to convince the international community to support a war against Iraq? Your success or failure at the international level will depend heavily on the uniform enforcement of UN resolutions against all countries. Selective enforcement will most certainly lead to doubts about US intentions, and, ultimately, can only compromise American influence and effectiveness on the international stage.
We therefore urge you to restore the relevance of the United Nations in maintaining world peace, and restore the reputation and credibility of the United States, by enforcing compliance with UN Security Council resolutions equally amongst all nations. We further urge you to use peaceful means to resolve all such conflicts. We believe in peace, justice and reconciliation and are opposed to war as a means of conflict resolution. War is destructive and can not be justified in any case, especially when peaceful alternatives exist.
[from a letter to President George W. Bush September 28, 2002]
Saddam Hussein was a "bad" leader, but there are much worse in many countries around the world. And, it's noteworthy that his secular regime suppressed religious sectarian conflict, protected the rights of Iraqi Christians, encouraged women to be educated and allowed to pursue careers outside the home, and he didn't allow al Qaida terrorists in the country.
Finally, our invasion destabilized the region much more than anything Saddam Hussein's regime. Our invasion and occupation was a magnet and a training ground for terrorists from throughout the Middle East, and it's ultimate effect will be to put the country into the ambit of Iran's influence and control.
When one tries so hard to change the subject it says alot about the current discussion...
...if you really want to discuss your anti-Israel (and whatever other 'anti-' things that may go along with it) passion that badly why not start another thread on that instead of trying to divert this one?
The whole "but, but other guys are bad too!" argument is inherently illogical.
Finally, your opinion about whether or not you think things should have been done differently (or, as it seems, not at all) is your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it.
"The fact that what some political speculators claimed never happened and cannot be proven AND is directly contradicted by those (many) involved in making the decision doesn't seem to dissuade the ardently partisan from insisting on baseless claims."
Well, when the reason for the invasion given by "those (many) involved in making the decision" has been re-written more often than France's constitution, you kinda have to wonder what the real reason was. That's the beauty of telling the truth: you don't have to keep changing your story.
"The whole 'but, but other guys are bad too!' argument is inherently illogical."
Well, when you argue that the US invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, it begs the question: why Iraq? Certainly there are people being oppressed or victimized in other countries around the world. Some of those countries might even be easier to invade and conquer than Iraq. So why Iraq, and not, say, Darfur? It's a legitimate question, if, as you say, to depose a tyrant is a legitimate reason to invade a country. (But to depose a tyrant is not a legitimate reason to invade a country, so maybe you have a point.)
Throughout history, conquests were made by small nations where bigger nations were defeated and conquered. But in this Iraq-American case, America cant be treated as conqueror, as Iraq is too small for a big country like USA. If America wins over Russia or China, it is the real conquest.
My statement is not just a comment. It is history. More than a million Chinese democratic activists gathered at the Tien-en-men-square in Beijing (Peking) in June,1989. Fearing a march similar to Mao's long march in 1949, the then Chinese Govt. ordered the crushing of the uprising on 4-6-1989. In a matter of hours, thousands of people were crushed to death. The matter was raised by US President Clinton in Beijing where he got a cool reply: " We dont interfere in your internal affairs. You dont interfere."
My English is the purest. Except by oversight, there may be spelling mistakes. But a true Englishman will understand my language.
I read an interesting article yesterday about BP opening up new Oil Pumping in Iraq.
Follow the money.
AND, here we go:
"Rupert Murdoch’s London Times Published Forged Iran Nuke Document, U.S. Intelligence Concludes"
July 2, 2010 posted by Michael Leon
"U.S. Intelligence found Iran nuke document was forged"
By Gareth Porter
Golly, it's so much like 9/11 mommy. Do they think we are stupid mommy??
March on to war, and as we heard from McCain:
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Was the Iraq War Worth It?????
That should read, 'IS* the Iraq War Worth It?'
There are still troops in Iraq, ffs.
Sheesh Oz.. you don't have so delicate in your expression!
FFS! - Now isn't that how you REALLY feel about it?
Was the Iraq War worth it?
One should ask the partners in crime Blair & Bush that Question.
Didn't they Both visit Iraq at the Tax payers expense wthout justifying the credit card withdrawals?
Go the Nederlands!
I don't know is your freedom worth it? Is it worth it knowing we can roam the streets, or sleep at night knowing that this kind of stuff is not happening at our doorstep? That there are not insurgents, and foreign soldier on our soil? I don't know if everything is handled exactly right I doubt it since we are all human and nothing is perfect. But I do believe it will be inevitable that if we don't keep up with what is going on and nip it in the bud so to speak we may well wake up one day with a war going on right here in the United States. People only see the here and now and don't think about the future at all. It baffles the mind.
Thanks, Diane, a voice of America speaking . . .
"But I do believe it will be inevitable that if we don't keep up with what is going on and nip it in the bud so to speak we may well wake up one day..."
Are we trying to set a record for vague platitudes without an ounce of fact that say nothing? Because you may have set a litarary record.
Diane, are you even serious?
Do you think that the US is more or less free now than before the US invaded Iraq?
Do you really think anybody's freedoms are being actually being defended by our invasion of Iraq?
The enemies we made and the ammount of cash we blew was devistating to our economy, and added yet another stain to the sad history of our nation.
but we sure had a fun time doing it! Cant wait for WWIII!!!
The "sad history of our nation"? Ha. And you might get a WW III if the Gulf Oil Spill continues to be so mis-handled, that 'mishandling', to put it mildly, is proving the saddest event in our history for many many years distant, and I hope for many to come.
A prime example for sure, but not quite as mishandled as the mass extermination of the Native Americans, Religious persicution, slavery, etc.
Unless the possibility exists that comparatively speaking in regards to the rest of the world, our country actually forsook those kinds of degenerate values at an excellerated pace? Not possible!
Although I understand that slavery still exists in Africa.
Oh, and ethnic cleansing still occurs in several Arabic and Slavic countries.
Wait then theres the continued religious persicution that runs rampant pretty much everywhere, except in the USA.
Still, I can assure you that for some reason were just as bad as everyone else.
No wonder you worry about adversaries! Loved the videos of the disfigured and burned Iraqi children did you?
Oh they were priceless.
I especially liked during the first Iraq war when Saddam burnt up all of those oil fields. What a great Idea.........
I love that your name is Doug as is my fathers, thanks for your very nice comment, way to go. Blah Blah Blah!. It is so funny how there are so many people who have nothing but negative to say about what our government does and the decisions that were made. However I wonder if any of these same people who enjoy the freedom they are afforded, here in America, have ever served America. In any way shape or form. No but you still enjoy your freedom and use it to every advantage, to speak your mind about everything.
Oh and Thanks KFlippin, I appreciate your support there. And for reading my who comment not just taking out the pieces that served your purpose. Glad to have you on my side.
Go and read 911.org. Study the problems we have in America. This war was a farce to get our troops involved in the east. They will take your son or daughter and use them as sheep for the slaughter. Do you see any of the president or representatives family over there. HELL NO and you will not see them. My son has done 1 duty over there and maybe be seeing his next. Bring our troops home and close our border, weed out the problems within and WE will become AMERICA once again. Peace and THANK YOU SOLDIERS FOR A GREAT JOB!!!
Personally, this afternoon I didn't think it was worth it as we waited to hear whether my stepson was one of the soldiers killed by an Afgani soldier. The delay whilst families were informed must have had us all waiting for the official visit. Turned out to be some other peoples sons. Not that this makes any difference, just felt I needed to share it.
5,521 is the current total American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All of those brave young men and women died serving their country and are deserving of our eternal gratitude.
There are at least 8 countries that have more homicides per year than that.
"All of those brave young men and women died serving their country and are deserving of our eternal gratitude."
That's absolutely true, 100%. They did die serving their country.
However their country (that's us, folks) horribly abused the trust those men and women gave us when they signed up to defend the US, its people, and its freedom. Iraq never attacked us. Those men and women were sent to attack, not to defend, and not even to counterattack, as in Afghanistan. While they were serving their country, their country was signing away its freedoms with the passage of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which made it much easier for the government to violate our civil rights, most of which still remains in effect today, and only a very small part of which actually does anything to keep Americans safer (which was its stated purpose).
But hey, we can stick a flag and a yellow sticker on our cars and feel like we're doing our part.
"That's absolutely true, 100%. They did die serving their country. "
Everything after this was just subjective political partisanship, which you are entitled to engage in of course.
No, it was a simple statement of fact. Iraq did not attack the US, and in fact was incapable of doing so. Iraq was not harboring those who attacked the US. In fact, al-qaida did not turn up in Iraq until after the US invaded.
The PATRIOT ACT was a much more egregious erosion of our constitutional rights then anything the wing nuts are currently freaking out about, but we didn't hear anything about warrantless wiretaps, sneak-and-peak searches, or government agents rifling through the records of bookstores and libraries to see who is reading what. The PATRIOT ACT, which authorized all this stuff, was passed while our soldiers were overseas, in harm's way, supposedly defending our freedom.
Those are facts, mate. You may think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and your entitled to that opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. These facts lead me to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression, not an act of defense.
A sword is different from a shield.
"No, it was a simple statement of fact."
Absolutely not. Read honestly what you wrote and you will see it was your evaluation of the situation and NOT a mere recitation of facts.
"horribly abused the trust " and "signing away its freedoms" is your opinion and your evaluation. You have every right to them, but that is all they are.
Iraq did not attack us. Fact. Iraq was incapable of attacking us. Fact. While the troops were in Iraq, the patriot act was passed, which allowed sneak-and-peak searches, warrantless searches of library and bookstore records, and warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Fact.
These facts, which came after the "serving their country" statement, are in fact facts, not political partisanship.
The rest of the stuff I wrote are my conclusions, yes.
Of course, you can argue that passing a law that subjects American citizens to warrantless eavesdropping and searches by their government somehow isn't an egregious infringement of our freedoms, and hey, I'd love to see how you spin it, for sheer entertainment value if noting else.
"Iraq was incapable of attacking us. Fact"
Obviously not true.
"the patriot act was passed, which allowed sneak-and-peak searches, warrantless searches of library and bookstore records, and warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Fact."
All things that had been available to the government even before the passage of that act. When the FBI broke the mafia by breaking in and planting microphones in mobsters homes and clubs were they robbing YOU of your freedom?
"Iraq was incapable of attacking us. Fact"
"Obviously not true."
Explain. Seems to me that Iraq had neither the means, nor a reason nor an inclination to attack the United States. What benefit would it have been to Saddam Hussein? Rather, an attack on the U.S. would have provoked an immediate retaliation. Where's the logic that Iraq was threatening to attack the U.S.? All the evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was bluffing about WMD for the benefit of Iran, not the U.S. or even Israel which would have obliterated him if he mounted a significant attack against them. You are grasping at straws. Hardly anybody agrees with what you are saying.
"Hardly anybody agrees with what you are saying."
What does that have to do with anything? Is this a high school popularity contest? Come on, we can do better.
"Seems to me that Iraq had neither the means, nor a reason nor an inclination to attack the United States."
We had already learned by then that "attack" need not necessarily mean rolling up on the shore with an invasion force, right? Saddam was openly supporting suicide bombers in Israel, demonstrating an inclination to the same kinds of violence that we had only too recently been subject to. His emnity toward the US was no secret in or outside of Iraq. We saw means, reason, and inclination in ample supply. How US interests in the region relate to US security at home had only too recently been vividly demonstrated. "Immediate retaliation" is funny considering he had only profited from 12 years of 'sanctions' and was getting away with whatever the hell he wanted while playing the greedy Europeans for fools and watching the Clinton administration make a lot of noise, lob the odd and ineffective missile now and then (when attention needed to be averted from fat chick BJ scandals) and little else.
"'Iraq was incapable of attacking us. Fact'
Obviously not true."
Support that claim, or admit that you're wrong.
"All things that had been available to the government even before the passage of that act." Perhaps, but prior to the passage of that act, if the government had used any of those techniques, any evidence gathered would have been thrown out of court as illegally obtained. Now they can spy on you without a warrant, and use it in court, and maybe, if you get a judge that values the Bill of Rights more than he fears the chimaera of terrorism, it might get thrown out.
"When the FBI broke the mafia by breaking in and planting microphones in mobsters homes and clubs were they robbing YOU of your freedom?"
They had to get warrants to do those things, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
When you let folks get searched without warrants, that's an infringement on our rights.
Or do you subscribe to the philosophy that as long as it doesn't happen to you, then nobody's rights are violated? Or maybe it's more of a question of "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about?"
"Support that claim, or admit that you're wrong."
We've covered this already.
""All things that had been available to the government even before the passage of that act." Perhaps"
Not "perhaps," per fact, and they were used to make successful cases to protect the public interest.
""Support that claim, or admit that you're wrong."
We've covered this already."
So you're wrong, because you can't support it.
"Not "perhaps," per fact, and they were used to make successful cases to protect the public interest."
Cite a case where a warrantless search-and-seizure, a sneak-and-peak search, or a search of library or bookstore database made a successful case to protect the public interest before the USA PATRIOT ACT became law.
Or else admit that you're wrong again.
"""Support that claim, or admit that you're wrong."
We've covered this already."
So you're wrong, because you can't support it."
NO, you're lazy because you didn't bother to read all the other replies.
Wow - you are still fighting this old lost battle of defending the indefensible, denying what everyone in the world seems to know except you - and still sucking in that propaganda !! way to go, I have to admire your tenacity and that one eyed view of the world - most people grew out of that with the Renaissance.
This article was written in 2005 with McKay being a strong supporter of The Patriot act before it was passed. Ironically, it was a little known provision in the Patriot Act which was used to fire him from his Bush appointed judgeship.
He was one of several fired in the Justice Department scandal which also involved Alberto Gonzalez and his refusal to uphold the law. If you watched the questioning of those who did the firing, then you know what I am speaking of.
It would be interesting to hear McKay's take on the Patriot Act now!
I think a small change of heart was called for.
The Iraq war was begun by lying to the "willing" countries such as England and Australia. Both Prime ministers were sacked as soon as the people found out that the admin had "cooked up" the WMD's. Bush and his cronies got these "willing" countries to get involved with financial threats and lies.
America should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
Both Governments are bent, and a foreign power killing the people won't change that.
The threats to America were of America's own making as they usually are.
The world does not need a bullying American policeman.
They have also caused untold world-wide damage through the war on drugs.
"what everyone in the world seems to know except you "
"The threats to America were of America's own making as they usually are.
The world does not need a bullying American policeman."
It would be poetic justic if my country's leadership remembered such sentiments the next time reality came knocking on your country's door, but they won't. We will be there for you regardless.
As I recall, the premise of the Iraqi war was "weapons of mass destruction," which were never found, Not even close. However, it seems that Iran has done a better job of producing that than Iraq.
Two-bit dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. They always torture and kill, rape and pillage their people, until some Big-Brother entity (like the US) comes in and says, "Oh yeah, well take this!" and they blow the hell out of the country, the people, its government and try to justify that it was economical and morally good to do so. Really, who suffers in this scenario? Everyone. Two wrongs don't make a right. And hate is perpetuated and good is thwarted because it was somehow "justified." Soldiers and citizens from all nations involved die. Families never get out of a state of mourning, and our economic survival continues to ruin instead of thrive.
And yet we can't seem to learn these lessons. We make two world wars, go to Korea, Vietnam, worry about Somalian Pirates and more. Everyone claims they're a victim of something else, and so their bad behavior toward humanity is "justified." Utter insanity.
I agree that the Iraq war was a catastrophic, egotistical mistake of supreme American Government arrogance. I think the American public are far more astute as to why our government is hated abroad than the government is ever aware.
One can never really justify a war, because once entered, we see how terribly complex and difficult it is to end and leave a ravaged nation who has learned to hate its "liberators." Perhaps this is the case with Iraq. Perhaps with Afghanistan. I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that it is so.
Egos and arrogance are terrible tools to use to solve disputes and differences, just as greed and predatory opportunism are.
Perhaps we do need to stay in Afghanistan. I think pulling out would be the complete undoing of the country, and perhaps even so with Iraq. But at what cost do we continue? No one's life is easier as a result of these two horrible mistakes.
The WMDs were a red herring, but it was believable at the time. Saddam Hussein was trying to give the impression that he had WMDs (and playing games with UN inspectors in the process) not because he wanted to scare the United States, but because he wanted to scare Iran, his enemy to the north and a much bigger threat to take over the country. He was trying to find a balance between looking powerful to his neighbors while at the same time looking weak and non-threatening to the United States -- a task that he ultimately failed. The connections to al Qaeda were falsified, and it's now clear that our government and the British government KNEW they were falsified. That should be concerning to everyone, because it means the heads of our government lied to us in order to get us to accept going into a war that we didn't need to be involved in.
So, what have we accomplished in Iraq? Well, Saddam is dead, and he was an evil person, so that's a good thing. We have not brought peace to the country, because as our forces toppled the government a power vacuum was created and soon "al Qaeda in Iraq" extremists starting flowing in from Iran. With U.S. forces remaining in Iraq, there is relative stability with only random IED explosions, sniper attacks, and suicide bombings. As soon as the U.S. withdraws its troops, there will be chaos in Iraq. The country is not unified, and the government that will prevail will be the one that can strong-arm the others, much like Saddam's Baath party did many decades ago. So we have accomplished nothing other than sacrificing thousands of our troops, wasting trillions of dollars, and making our country look weak and unorganized to the rest of the world. Was it worth it? Not at all.
"The WMDs were a red herring, but it was believable at the time. Saddam Hussein was trying to give the impression that he had WMDs (and playing games with UN inspectors in the process) not because he wanted to scare the United States, but because he wanted to scare Iran, his enemy to the north and a much bigger threat to take over the country. He was trying to find a balance between looking powerful to his neighbors while at the same time looking weak and non-threatening to the United States -- a task that he ultimately failed. The connections to al Qaeda were falsified, and it's now clear that our government and the British government KNEW they were falsified. That should be concerning to everyone, because it means the heads of our government lied to us in order to get us to accept going into a war that we didn't need to be involved in."
All true, except some far-sighted people opposed the invasion, whether or not Iraq had WMD, because even if it had had WMD this little pissant country wouldn't have been a threat to the United States. It had no delivery system that could have reached the U.S. and if it had Saddam Hussein wasn't crazy enough to launch an attack against the United States. After all, our tried and tested policy of mutually assured destruction and containment had for sixty years withstood the actual danger from USSR's and China's thousands of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, with a stroke of the pen Bush dumped our defense policy without debate in favor of his preemptive war strategy. At most Iraq'a WMD would have posed a threat to its neighbors in the Middle East, including Israel. The Israel lobby was one of the strongest supporters of the invasion of Iraq. The Neocons who were among the strongest supporters of the ill-considered invasion were nearly all hawkish Jewish supporters of Likud in Israel. Since then they have been beating the drums for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
Good point, DB. We never did a bigger favor for a bigger threat to the US than when we took out Iran's biggest threat: Saddam's Iraq. That gave Iran a free hand as the region's unchecked great power. As soon as we pull out of Iraq, Iran will exercise its power. Who will stop it? The US again? Yeah, probably, and then even more people will be mad at us. Go, team.
... a completely unprovoked war against a sovereign nation that proved to the world that the largest superpower/empire EVER known to mankind was willing to INVADE a country and still claim moral superiority; all whilst NEVER ACTUALLY CONSTITUTIONALLY DECLARING WAR; and providing a completely bogus grounds for the legislature to further wipe its nether-regions with the Constitution with it's passage of the Patriot Act; and showing that the US has little to no problem with torturing its enemies!!!!!
No. It wasn't worth it. Not at all. Never. No. Nada.
And please stop referring to it as "the Iraq War", a much more accurate term would be "the Congressionaly-Undeclared-But-Approved-By-Committee Executive Invasion/Military Campaign with No Declared Purpose or Goal Against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Whom Our Government Put In Power Some 30 Years Ago".
... But I guess that takes too long to say...
You said it as it is, but you are way too young to be so smart. So what's the secret?
I had a Youth-implant when I was ninety - I'm actually 116!
But in reality, if anyone wants to understand and prove that no one in government or mainstream economics actually knows what they're doing, just read "Economics in one Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, followed by delving into the Economic thought system of "Austrian Economics"
I also feel 'what war is worth it' but then again, I think there are always agendas that we have no idea about. That is the problem with our government I guess.
I feel that the Iraq war was totally illegal - we had no business being there and I agree with you from the first post - Afghanistan probably most definitely although what are we accomplishing is my only problem with THAT particular war. Are we any further ahead? It certainly doesn't seem like it.
I am an older person I guess - 57 almost - and I remember Vietnam. My cousin was over there and it haunted me daily as we watched the war play out on TV every night. It turns out my future husband was there not once but 2 tours. I feel today like I did then - helpless. I always want to believe we are doing the right thing by defending 'freedom' - but at what cost? I'm heartsick at the maimed and killed and I feel like I did about Vietnam - no end in sight. And are we really making ANY difference at all over there? I tend to think not and I feel there is an agenda that is running the show.
My heart goes out to all the men and women who so humbly serve us each and every day on soil that is not even their own. I don't know HOW they do it to be honest! God bless them all.
War has been a significant fragment of historical evolution among nations states. True to its fact, war, in its simplest form is a nation's offensive stance in telling the world how war-worthy a nation is. With the existence of interntional peace treaties however, and the UN, I wonder why nations still invest too much on waging war against each other. Ryan is right, it is unfortunate to realize how our government spend too much money on armaments and other war equipments, when in fact, after the process of war and retaliation, both the winning and the losing country will still have to spend again considerable amount of money for both economic and social recovery. Some may say that war, may be ideologically driven, or at the most, founded on biblical verses. But what the heck, i guess its stupidity to wage war on any nation of community, for the sake of religion and ideology, much stupid perhaps than the sole reason of waging war for carnage and oppression! We may have other subtle strategies to pursue when we want to make other countries hold on to their knees, say economic sabotage.
I think there is a bountiful economic opportunities hidden and masked behind the economy of wars. This is guess should be looked into; how much do few people earn in the trade of firearms and explosives which are used in wars?
If you go back to the Reagan years, you will find that we were very supportive of Iraq in its efforts to win a war against Iran. As sooon as Iran was out of the picture, the untied states decides that the person they put into power in Iraq is not working to their advantage. (Oil was obviously not on the bargaining table, as they had hoped.)
The whole Iraq invading Kuwait thing was over oil, and when the Iraq troops starting burning the oil wells, the U.S. decided to move in, even though half of the people of Kuwait were gone.
So, to not make it appear that we wnet there for nothing, they set up to go after Saddam, instead of finding out what this invasion was about.
The goal afterwords was going after Iraq's oil. They didn't catch a break until 911, which Bush used as an excuse to attack
Iraq, even though he had no proof that Iraq had anything to do with it. The first thing they did was send troops to control the oil fields, and bombed the cities as a diversion, knowing that the media would be all over it.
Haliburton then moved in. (A company controlled by Dick Cheney)
and, tried to secure contracts on all of the restructuring of Iraq, making him and his partners, and the Bush family Billions in profits. But, that wasn't enough for them. Now they had to invade Afganistan, to get rid of the Taliban.
I recently learned that the taliban, and the Bin Laden family were huge contributers to George Bush polictal run for the white house. What a better way to hide that evidence by making them an enemy and taking them out. You might also be interested to learn that there is also a gas/oil pipeline in Afganistan that is being protected, under this new war. And, the president of Afganistan was once on the Haliburton payroll.
So, the war in Iraq is just the beginning of the plot. All to control the price of oil, and make oil tycoons richer and richer. The next oil war I see coming is in Africa. Not sure which country it is, but the U.S. is already considering sending troops there.
Probably why they are dragging their heels on fixing the gulf disaster. If it were me, and I was the states along the gulf, I would place a government hold on all the oil that is being pumped into the ships there, and, refine it, sell it, and give the money made from it to the people of thos states.
There is just way to much underhanded garbage going on in all these wars, to believe any of it is worth it. Certainl not worth any of the lost over it.
The united nations should lay claim to all oil companies, and spread the wealth to the people. That would end all this war crap once and for all.
The war in Iraq was ill conceived from the beginning. Huge waste of resources as well as human life.
Iraq, formerly Mossepotomia, was the birthplace of written law. But now, that country stands occupied illegally by a country, who claim that they are victors in Iraq. Because Iraqis and the countries surrounding Iraq have no unity, they are there. The day when they are chased away from this area is not far away. Those countries who invite the US presence in the area will become non-existent in the coming years. Americans are patronising "bushes" in an area which will become an abode of peace like the Himalayas in the years to come. Bushes will be cleared soon.
Sab cited this article as support for his assertion that the Patriot Act didn't actually change anything, and that everything in it was available to law enforcement already.
He's wrong. Observe as I now destroy his arguments with the greatest of ease. (Channeling Evan G Rogers here )
The article says "Yet, long before enactment of the Patriot Act, library records have been subpoenaed and used in criminal prosecutions when such evidence would be relevant to the crime being investigated."
The important word here is the one emphasized: subpoenaed.
I have no problem with law enforcement using a subpoena to get information. That's how it's done. But under the USA PATRIOT ACT, the subpoena is not required. The Gov't can just go and rifle through the library's records to see who is reading what. That's the difference, and it's a pretty big one.
"The power to subpoena records of any kind, including library records, business records or financial records, has been a longstanding and fundamental resource in law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct."
Yes, and if the PATRIOT ACT simply gave the feds the power to use a subpoena to get various records to build a case against or catch terrorists, that'd be okay. But that's not what it does: it gives the power to search those records without judicial oversight.
"Why, then, should law enforcement be denied this fundamental tool in its investigation and prosecution of terrorism?"
It shouldn't. But it should absolutely still have to go get a subpoena to use this tool. Under the PATRIOT ACT, they don't have to get the subpoena, and that', my friends, is why Sab-Oh is dead wrong.
The article also makes an interesting, though meaningless, observation:"Ironically, as of March 30, the Patriot Act authority has never been used to request library records."
Well, that may or may not be true. You see, the PATRIOT ACT makes it a crime to tell anybody that the library records have been searched. If no library searches have taken place, of course nobody would say anything, but if a library search had taken place, any librarian who did mention the fact would be committing a federal crime!
So not only does the PATRIOT ACT remove a check on executive power (reason #1 why Sab is wrong about the PATRIOT ACT's library searches) but it preemptively infringes on the freedom of speech of any librarian whose library's records are searched (reason #2 why Sab is wrong.)
Now let's talk about the sneak-and-peek searches. The argument is that the cops could always do a sneak and peek search, and the patriot act just lets them do it to terrorists as well as other kinds of criminals.
"In essence, delayed notification searches authorize federal agents to conduct a search, after getting a federal search warrant signed by a federal judge, without having to give immediate notification to the target of the investigation. Such delayed notification is permitted when good reason is shown, and when a federal judge authorizes it....The Patriot Act simply permits use of this longstanding tool in cases involving terrorism."
No, that's not all it does. If that were all it did, then Sab would be right, and I'd be munching on a heaping helping of crow right about now. But of course, my plate is crow-free. The extra thing the PATRIOT ACT does, is it also requires the judge to issue the warrant (it's nice that a warrant is still required, but...). The warrant must be issued, not based on evidence gathered or sworn testimony detailing the reasons why law enforcement thinks there is evidence to be found. All that law enforcement has to do is say, "We think this guy is a terrorist," and abracadabra, the judge must grant the warrant. The judge can't even ask, "Why do you think the guy is a terrorist." He must grant the warrant, no questions asked. This is yet another unprecedented removal of the judicial check on an executive power.
And that, my friends, is why Sab is dead wrong about sneak-and-peek searches.
Sometimes it's so easy, I'm almost ashamed of myself.
That's two points so far. We haven't yet discussed the warrantless wiretapping that W initiated (and which, remember, Obama has yet to order an end to, so the new guy isn't perfect on this either), and whether that is or isn't an infringement on our right to be free in our persons and papers from unreasonable search and seizure. (Here's a hint: it is.)
Thank you all for joining us for this round of, "Someone's Wrong on the Internet!" Tune in next time when I'll demonstrate that, oh, I dunno, that two guys getting married will not cause the end of the world as we know it, curdle the milk, or make conservative men leave their wives to go woo a Chippendale's dancer. Good night!
(Special thanks to Evan G Rogers for his "Destroy their arguments with the greatest of ease" shtick. It was fun using it. You can have it back now. )
"Sab cited this article"
Yes, and people can read it for themselves and see how it exactly answers the question you asked. Then, if they want to they can read your spin and draw their own conclusions. As usual, people will likely end up at the same political views they had in the first place.
So, are you saying that the PATRIOT ACT doesn't require judges to rubber-stamp warrants when the law enforcement guy says "terrorist?" 'Cos that'll make you wrong yet again.
Are you saying there's no gag-order for librarians whose library records have been searched? 'Cos you'll still be wrong.
Do you get some kind of adsense bonus for saying incorrect stuff? If so, how do you get in on it? I usually don't make stuff up, but I can if the pay is good.
"So, are you saying that the PATRIOT ACT doesn't require judges to rubber-stamp warrants when the law enforcement guy says "terrorist?""
It does not.
"Are you saying there's no gag-order for librarians whose library records have been searched?"
That was also often the case prior to the passage of the act in question.
""So, are you saying that the PATRIOT ACT doesn't require judges to rubber-stamp warrants when the law enforcement guy says "terrorist?""
It does not."
And that's not true. You can repeat the falsehood as much as you want, but it will still be false.
""Are you saying there's no gag-order for librarians whose library records have been searched?"
That was also often the case prior to the passage of the act in question."
That may or may not be true, I don't know. But even assuming it is, often /= always, and the worst that would happen before is being cited for contempt of court. Under the Patriot Act, it's a federal crime.
And what it comes down to, is that one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be to defend American freedoms. But the Patriot Act takes many of them away.
It seems pretty disingenuous to say that we're fighting a war to defend freedom while at the same time suppressing freedom at home.
[Slightly off topic rant follows]
If the suspension of freedom were a case of rationing to support the war effort (a-la WWII), I could understand it. Since the war is supposedly of vital importance, we should all be making sacrifices. But the only thing we have to do to be held up as a patriot is to put a sticker on our car and ta-da, we've done our part. Anyone who bothers to scrutinize the government's behavior is branded a seditious traitor who hates the troops, and anyone who insists on keeping the freedoms that the troops are supposedly defending is accused of wanting the terrorists to win. Well, the terrorists want to frighten us into doing things. And they have frightened you into giving up some of your freedoms. Congratulations, supporters of the PATRIOT ACT, warrantless wiretapping, and so on. You've handed the terrorists a victory while ineffectually raging against them. I bet they're laughing at you right now. I would be, if it weren't so stinking pathetic.
[end slightly off-topic rant]
"""So, are you saying that the PATRIOT ACT doesn't require judges to rubber-stamp warrants when the law enforcement guy says "terrorist?""
It does not."
And that's not true. "
Ok, show me exactly where in the bill it says "rubber stamp" and where it specifically says judges have no choice or discretion.
Okay, so Sab Challenged me to find the parts of the Patriot Act that actually eroded our civil liberties. This was some days ago, and I’ve been busy doing stuff like writing articles and editing dialogue and researching stuff and doing other writer-type things, so I hope you’ll all forgive me for taking so long to respond. Below are my data points demonstrating that yes, the patriot act did in fact erode American civil liberties by removing checks on law enforcement. (And incidentally, that Sab is, once again, and still, wrong.)
As for the requirement that judges rubber-stamp warrants, check out this section of the PATRIOT ACT:
`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
Let me break this down for you. The application for a warrant has these requirements:
1) An “Assistant Special Agent In Charge” or a higher-ranking Justice Dept. employee must make the application,
2) it can’t be based on the subject of the investigation’s religion, anything he said or wrote, or anybody he met with, and
3) The Agent must say, “We think this guy’s a terrorist.”
Note that there is no requirement for the Agent to explain to the judge why we think the guy is a terrorist; he must simply say that we think the guy is a terrorist.
If all of those easy-to-meet requirements are met, then “the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records”
Not “If the judge rules that there is probable cause to believe that the guy is a terrorist” but “If the agent states that he thinks guy is a terrorist” then the judge shall issue the warrant.
That is a removal of the judicial check on law enforcement, since prior to this, law enforcement had to show probable cause that they thought the guy was a terrorist. Now they don’t; they simply have to say that the guy’s a terrorist and the judge’s hands are tied: he must issue the warrant.
We find more of this removal of the judicial check on law enforcement in the following section:
SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.
Here are the important bits:
“Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Note that the attorney for the Government does not have to disclose any evidence, demonstrate probable cause, or, in short, prove anything to the judge. He simply must certify (not even swear or affirm) that he thinks he’ll find evidence.
The same thing is true for State law enforcement officers, that is, state troopers.
Now please redirect your attention back to section 215, where it says:
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
This is a blanket gag-order, a pre-emptive infringement on the freedom of speech of anyone who maintains records (or “any tangible thing”) that was searched or seized. Not only can they not say what was searched, or what was seized (which is probably reasonable), they can’t even mention the fact that a search occurred.
There are other infringements, plenty of them, but these are the ones we were specifically talking about.
So, there you go, from the text of the Patriot Act itself: Judicial checks on law enforcement searches and surveillance have been removed (an infringement on your right to be secure in our persons and papers from unreasonable search and seizure) and a pre-emptive unreasonable gag-order that infringes on the freedom of speech of those who maintain any records (or any other tangible things) to be searched.
“Ok, show me exactly where in the bill it says "rubber stamp" and where it specifically says judges have no choice or discretion.”
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
“You have lost NONE of your freedoms.”
And once again, you’re wrong. I’m curious: do you get an adsense bonus for that?
In case you want to read the text yourself, you can look here, but be prepared, it's a long, long document. Most people haven't even bothered to read it before they condemn or endorse it.
Also, and it's important to point this out, the PATRIOT ACT isn't all bad. many of its provisions are common-sense changes that allow information sharing between various jurisdictions of law enforcement and between law enforcement and the intelligence community. I support those parts of the act.
But I will always oppose those parts of the act that infringe on our constitutional rights. Somebody's got to, because apparently the conservatives don't believe they exist.
"Anyone who bothers to scrutinize the government's behavior is branded a seditious traitor who hates the troops, and anyone who insists on keeping the freedoms that the troops are supposedly defending is accused of wanting the terrorists to win."
That is obviously not true.
"And what it comes down to, is that one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be to defend American freedoms. But the Patriot Act takes many of them away.
It seems pretty disingenuous to say that we're fighting a war to defend freedom while at the same time suppressing freedom at home."
You have lost NONE of your freedoms.
Head of MI 5 says Iraq and Afghanistan wars increased terrorism against the UK. This is true for the U.S. as well.
The former head of MI5 testified that
1. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly increased the terrorist threat to Britain by "radicalizing...young people who saw our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as an attack on Islam.
2. The Blair government failed to heed MI5's warning that attacking Saddam Hussein would make Britain more vulnerable to terrorism.
3. Iraq had presented little threat to Britain before the invasion.
4. There had been no reliable evidence linking the government of Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.
5. This judgment that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not a threat found favor with elements in the U.S. government. And that's why Donald Rumsfeld set up an alternative intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment.
6. The invasion led to an "almost overwhelming" increase in homegrown terrorism, so much that MI5 had to have its budget doubled in the following months.
7. "Arguably, we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world … amp;st=cse
I have to give it to the Republicans. They have an uncanny knack for naming (e.g, 'framing') things.
PATRIOT Act (if you're not one, Big Brother will find out soon enough)
TAX Relief (but only for those who don't need it)
I could find several more...
Excellent research and report, Jeff!
(I keep hearing the old, operatic Mighty Mouse music whenever I see your monicker. )
As usual you get it half right. Dems needed to support that horrible law, which they did. You need to wake up and realize there isn't much difference between the wings of the Demopublican party.
The Iraq war was well worth it to the "Secret Societies" with ideas of Grandeur standing in the new Babylon. There will be a tower erected, an Obelisk. That will announce the rebirth of Babylon and the awakening of the old gods!
There is one erected by the "Secret Societies" whenever they conquer and control a land.
I don't think it was worth it. We are bankrupted right now. We have gained nothing from this, not really, maybe some oil. But that is not worth the lives that it has cost America. That is not worth the money we have spent. We should of just bought Iraq. It probably would have been cheaper. And Bush, his excuses were and are such a joke. We all know it was about revenge. The American taxpayer basically funded a family feud backyard brawl.
To what resolution though? Nah, it has never been worth it. At least this is my humbled opinion.
No. Of course the iraq war wasn't worth.
I'm disgusted that anyone could argue it was.
no, it wasn't! it will be interesting to see what goes into the history books.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/ … /index.pdf
I haven't read all the replies posted. But when there's war keep in mind:
1. That money is made in war. Contractors big and small benefit greatly from the war machine. As the supply and demand trickles down this means jobs, R&D, and a healthier economy.
2. The invaded country's resources: In this case oil and a shared border with Iran. The U.S. likes this; especially the shared border with Iran.
3. An attempt at nation-building. This is new on the U.S. agenda. It would be nice if the conquered nation's culture wasn't so dissimilar. But, it's still worth a try.
4. That there is rabid support from other Middle East nations for invading rogue states in their midst. These include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Israel, and even Turkey all of which feared Iraq and now Iran. The U.S. benefits from their appreciation.
5. That Biblically speaking, this is supposed to happen. The Western forces represent Christianity versus the Muslim oppressors. Some on HP may not see it that way. But this is no different than the Crusades.
Now, for the much-anticipated Armageddon.
1)"Money is made in war"
This is COMPLETE nonsense that only a Keynesian could believe. The money that was "created" by warfare was taken from the public that COULD have been spending the money on things like, oh i dunno, "investment in the future", or "charity", or, i dunno, "food".
Government can NOT create wealth, it can ONLY rearrange wealth. Claiming that government can create wealth is like arguing that taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and spilling it into the shallow end will raise the water level of the whole pool.
2) "The invaded country's resources..."
Let's be honest - who harvests the resources? Private companies. This means that GOVERNMENT is to blame for this farce of a war. "Oh, we need oil... but instead of trading with people, let's just invade them" - this is a HORRIBLE business model, and can only be done through theft (aka, Taxes).
3) -- no qualms there: it's disgusting but true. Another failure of government.
4) -- another failure of government.
5) "Biblically speaking, this is supposed to happen"
Biblically speaking, Jesus was a Jew and also of middle eastern complexion. Also, I didn't know that murder was ok if it's "Biblically speaking"
I'm not into war. and I have been very critical of the war in Iraq and the war in Afganistan. But do think that Islamic extremists were planning to destablise the western world and they were also planning a large number of extremist attacks on Europe and America.
I regret deeply the lives lost on all sides. But thus far today I feel we live in a world that is a little safer as a result of the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think I'm gonna say that yes it was worth it. The all the work is not done yet and we still have a long way to go before we will live in a peaceful world.
by Deforest2 years ago
As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after "Mission Accomplished," media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a "mistake." But the "mistake"...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney release their memoirs early next year. What are they and other neoconservatives who pushed for the Iraq War in the Bush Administration saying now? Brookings Institution Senior...
by BristolBoy8 years ago
With the news that a further 8 UK service personnel have died in Afghanistan in the last 24 hours it means that deaths in this war now exceed those due to the Iraq conflict. As a result calls are increasing for...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Whether we want to or not?Pres, Obama's announcement - we will engage ISSA!Hold on folks, before you jump...If I had my druthers, the Iraq war would not have happened - I think it was a dumb move.When we left Iraq...
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
Is there anyone reading who can explain the global economic crisis simply and objectively in just a few paragraphs? When I try to find information to understand what's going on with the Euro and with the US economy,...
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.