Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: U.S. can't afford to lose all it gained in Iraq, Afghanistan’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 9 2014 9:59 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Well I guess we have to revisit the controversy surrounding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Deseret News is right in pointing out that the United States has enormous sunk costs in those two wars, both in terms of wealth expended and bloodshed, and a whole generation of military with incurable disabilities. So what would you have the Obama administration do? Send more troops in? How many more casualties will you put up with? As soon as the United States leaves either theater the locals will go back to their old animosities. Remember, Iraq in particular is a totally artificial country - cobbled together to help the British exploit the region for oil. If things don't change in those areas the United States has two options: 1) get out, or 2) bulk up there and stay forever.

There is a third way out, and that would be for the United States to assume a policy of real neutrality in Palestine. This would get the United States some degree of credibility in the Muslim world. Without such a change our options are limited.

UT Brit
London, England

The US gained something in Iraq?

Saddam was a tyrant but he was a tyrant holding a bag of snakes. The Iraqi people are now suffering with daily car bombs, roaming death squads and poor living conditions.

The invasion has accomplished nothing except to open the door nice and wide for al qaida.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

so, several questions

- how long are we supposed to occupy Iraq
- How long are we supposed to occupy Afghanistan?
- How much will it cost
- What exactly are we achieving

Or a bigger question. What was the purpose of going into these places in the first place?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

"Comments about ‘In our opinion: U.S. can't afford to lose all it gained in Iraq, Afghanistan"

----

What is it exactly that we have gained from these wars? and and what is so important about continuing to fight over there that we ought to continue borrowing from China and the rest of the world to pay for these wars?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Perhaps we should go to back to Vietnam and finish what we started there too? If we started up the draft again it might not cost so much.

Has it ever occured to you that it isn't our job to fight every war on this planet?

FT
salt lake city, UT

Ditto the previous comments. Bush-Chenney orchestrated the most horrific calamity of our time with the invasion of Iraq. Our country and the world was in no urgent danager and world leaders pleaded with Bush to slow down and let the inspectors finish their work. Bush-Chenney thought they had an opportunity to change the dynamic in that region. What they ended up doing was destroying lives, families and communities for generations. We can't undo what's been done. Other than prayers and humanatarian relief there is little we can do to bring solace to the victims of this tradegy.

Esquire
Springville, UT

The fact that major cities are now under al Quaeda only shows that the Bush wars were a huge mistake that only made things worse over the long run. Hussein may have been a bad guy (one we loved at one point), but what did we gain. Thousands of dead Americans and trillions of dollars wasted on a Bush boondoggle that we are still paying for.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

The article assumes we should have been in Iraq in the first place so what we "gained" had some value.

Wrong on both accounts.

Actually I find this opinion stunning and really scary. To think the neocons are still out there lurking just waiting for another "moderate" Republican President (think Chris Christie) so they can continue their agenda in the middle east, sends chills up my spine.

I like Marist's solution, and cjb's suggestion of re-visiting Vietnam as a contrast.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "There is a third way out, and that would be for the United States to assume a policy of real neutrality in Palestine."

"Real neutrality" would require us to be much more supportive of the Israeli side that we have been for many years.

The Obama regime has spent enormous quantities of time, money, and political capital trying to prevent Israel's defending itself from Arab attacks on innocent Israeli women and children.

To what end? It has done nothing but embolden radical Islamists to blame ALL their barbaric misbehavior on Israel -- and us, of course.

It's gotten so bad that even otherwise reasonable Americans are now suggesting actions they know would generate a new Jewish holocaust, as if we somehow owe that to Arabs in the region.

It's beyond sad.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

What we gained from Iraq:

Thousands of dead Iraqis and American soldiers.
Added nearly $1 trillion to the U.S debt.
Destabilized Iraq, creating thousands of Iraqi refugees and civil war.
Emboldened Iran

Now:a haven for terrorists

Americans are tired of fighting wars in the middle east and elsewhere which result in little to no net gain for either the citizens of the country or American safety and security. We are looked at by residents of the countries we invade with more derision and blame than gratitude.

UT Brit
London, England

@procuradorfiscal

Look at how many Israelis have died in the past 10 years compared to how many Palestinians. Palestinians launch bottle rockets while Israel fires rockets filled with white phosphorus over one of the most densly populated places on the planet.

If you are trying to invoke the image of a poor, weak Israel the facts show the complete opposite.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Anybody who didn't at least suspect that we would loose the ground we gained in Iraq and Afghanistan if we elected Barack Obama... was smoking something. He campaigned on that promise.

Problem is... the majority of Americans don't care what happens in Iraq or Afghanistan now. So it's time we got out. I don't want my kids dieing for something we don't care about.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"In recent history, the United States has had to maintain a long-term presence in various nations in which it has secured liberty. Germany, Japan and South Korean are examples of this." The only difference is they stopped shooting at us shortly after the surrender.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Can't lose what we gained? What did we gain? 4500 American lives lost, 100000 or more Iraqies killed. A trillion dollars in treasure spent. No weapons of mass destruction removed. A replacement Islamic state aligned with Iran. Continuing tribal bloodshed. Ill will from various places.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Turns out you can't jump into a 1000+ year conflict between Sunni and Shi'a and think you're going to magically make it all better.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

By all means, let's waste more blood and treasure in Iraq. What a disgusting mess Cheney created there.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"In our opinion: U.S. can't afford to lose all it gained in Iraq, Afghanistan"

We gained the elimintation of Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. And I am agree that we can't afford to lose in Afghanistan.

But the government of Afghanistan is corrupt. They have been warned and warned and they still have not listened. If we stay we send out the message that we were not serious in our warnings.

There a governor in South Carolina who had a mistress. His wife found out, forgave him and told him to stop. But he went back anyway. She divorced him. She said, "I can forgive adultery, but I can't condone it."

Our message to Karzai and Afghanistan is: "We can forgive corruption, but we can't condone it."

If the Taliban take over again, they will probably not invite Al Qaeda. What I understand is that they have realized that it worked out badly for them in the 1990's.

azreader1
tucson, AZ

It was foolish of us to have ever given up a solid military presence in Iraq. A U.S. military base in Iraq would have been the perfect launching point to protect the U.S.'s critical interests in the Middle East (and yes, that includes oil). By giving up that strategic and tactical advantage, we truly squandered an irreplaceable opportunity.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

RE "There is a third way out, and that would be for the United States to assume a policy of real neutrality in Palestine"... (Marxist)

But that would almost certainly eventually result in the inhalation of millions of Jews... But I think you know that, and either don't care or WANT that result.

We should not sacrifice the lives of millions of innocent Jewish civilians at the alter of placating the Muslim world, or in hopes of gaining a degree of credibility in the Muslim world.

I can't believe how callus the left is to the plight of the Jewish people. It's like they are just vermin... something that we either don't care about, or something that SHOULD be destroyed.

---

I'm sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians too. But they have other options.

USA backing away and promising total neutrality would only insure Israel's total destruction. But I think you know that.

Richie
Saint George, UT

We should not be in any war unless we want to win. The last time that happened was WW II. We received collateral damage at Pearl Harbor and retaliated by assisting the RAF in bombing Germany into rubble. We fire bombed Tokyo and used the nuke twice on Japan. Those nasty old nukes probably saved 4,000,000 Americans, most of them your fathers and grandfathers. We should withdraw our troops from Pakistan, Aphganistan, Iraq and quit fiddling with Iran. Then we should turn them all into desert wasteland. Take no prisoners.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments