Comments about ‘Pew study shows majority of Americans see failure in Iraq, Afghanistan’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 6:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

At least this poll doesn't have the partisan divide. That's refreshing. Maybe it's because BOTH sides have had a try and failed. Until Obama got his try and also failed... I think we would have seen more partisan differences.

===

LDS Liberal,
How much of America's oil actually comes from Iraq and Afghanistan? It's not much.

I think blame it on $5.00/gallon gas is disingenuous and a sign of a person who lives in a reality defined by partisan talking points.

===

And if it's just about $5.00 gas... why has Obama kept our troops in there? Is he also owned by Bush's evil Big-Oil buddies?

===

happy2bhere,
Our goal was NOT to convert them to Christianity. If you think back... the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban which controlled the government. To deter future attacks... a response (and regime change) was our goal.

Iraq is more complicated. I know you don't believe this, but I believe that the main reason for America wanting regime change there was... Saddam Hussein was a DE-stabilising force in the middle-east, he encouraged and funded international terrorism.

jsf
Centerville, UT

The administration has committed to maintain a non-combat presence in Afghanistan with 7,000 to 15,000 remaining troops, additional financial aid and continuing support for an indeterminate length of time. Can you say Vietnam. The big hang up, Afghanistan wants to be able to prosecute US troops in their courts, in the event civilians die in crossfire.

As for Iraq, we will be back.

The result our troops will be getting shot at for years to come in these countries.

And the new troop commitments, Mali, Sudan, -----, the list keeps expanding.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

I can't keep up with the flip-flopping logic.

If a poll says most Utahns do not support Gay marriage, the poll is right.

If a poll says most Americans think Afghanistan and Iraq were failures,
that Global Warming is real,
that Utah's air is aweful,
that Barack Obama is winning and has won, again,
the poll is wrong.

The only conclusion I'm beginning to see is that Conservative see the entire world and reality through a very small myopic, knot-hole from their own little polluted bubble.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Related to our situation with Iraq, I wonder how many people remember the name "Hans Blix"?

I remember in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq that Hans Blix was fairly widely castigated as being a dupe of Saddam. Of course, after we failed to find WMD, Blix was essentially exonerated, but by then we were waist deep in a conflict far beyond the scope anyone imagined.

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

"9/11 demanded a serious response."

Agreed.

So why did we invade Iraq?

Why did we attempt to nation build Afghanistan?

Why did we take our focus off the guy who actually planned and organized the 9/11 attacks?

Thanks goodness we have Obama. Had we maintained repub control we'd be off invading another middle-eastern country rather than actually capturing the mastermind behind 9/11.

Sorry repubs, you had your shot. You had 8 years to find and get him. You failed. Time to move on

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading Mexico because of Pearl Harbor.

airnaut
Everett, 00

@2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

LDS Liberal,
How much of America's oil actually comes from Iraq and Afghanistan? It's not much.

I think blame it on $5.00/gallon gas is disingenuous and a sign of a person who lives in a reality defined by partisan talking points.

========

FYI --
Oil is sold on the GLOBAL market,
the point of origin is irrelevant to global price.

Also why the KeyStone Pipeline cutting through America will not benefit Americans.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

2bits, "I believe that the main reason for America wanting regime change there was... Saddam Hussein was a DE-stabilising force in the middle-east,"

As a harsh critic of the Iraq war, and Obama's Afghanistan policy I will give you the above statement somewhat.

I think the neo-cons did believe the above, but that view was embedded in a very naïve and distorted, and what proved to be, dangerous view of the middle east. What scares me is that view is still around. Lindsay Graham, and John McCain are still talking about good guys and bad guys in the middle east relative to democracy and American interests.

The President's hesitancy towards all of these groups is far more realistic. Fact is they don't give a hoot about American interests. Your friend today is your enemy tomorrow.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

There were a multitude of reasons and rationalizations for taking military action in Iraq.

In my mind #1 was that he was involved in funding and encouraging terrorist attacks (not 9/11). He offered a $50,000 reward for anyone who would carry out suicide attacks against Americans or Jews. $50,000 is a lifetime income in those countries.

#2 was his nuclear weapons program. There was already 100% certainty that he had and used chemical weapons (from the attack on the Kurds in the Iran/Iraq war). You can't use them if you don't have them.

The international community also had concerns about Iraq's nuclear weapons program (Hussein and his military leaders admitted they had one). The UN had inspectors in Iraq monitoring their progress. When Hussein kicked UN inspectors out... that raised the threat level (crossed the red line).

He didn't respond to the ultimatum to let inspectors back in in time.... we had not option but to do something. He provoked a standoff. If we did nothing... it would prove the US was a paper-tiger (something he fully believed and wanted to prove to the rest of the middle-east).

There were lots of reasons (not just one).

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

All proven wrong.
Why do you continue to defend a lie?

Let me guess,
You've never served in the military.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The Republican Party took us into Iraq under false pretenses and they never have been held accountable, and I suppose never will. Our political system doesn't work.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Open Minded Mormon,

Not true. What of the 3 things I mentioned can you "prove wrong"?

He did offer rewards to suicide bombers (not just in Iraq). That is proven and well documented.

He did have chemical weapons (He use them on the Kurds). That is also proven and well documented.

Nuclear Weapons program. Also 100% proven (by the UN Inspectors). We knew they had the program, they admitted it, and even allowed UN Nuclear inspectors in to monitor it's progress (at first).

What of these was proven false??

===

You're always trying to make assumptions (based on your stereotypes). Yes I did serve in the military. And so did my father. And his father. And my brothers.

===

Some of the evidence used in the UN presentation turned out be bogus.... but a lot of it didn't. One spoiled apple doesn't mean they all are bad. Just because one piece of evidence turned out to be bad... doesn't mean every rational presented was bad.

You have such a biased view of this... I really don't trust your opinion on it to be objective.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

2bits, here's the reality; "In its comprehensive 30 September 2004 report (also known as the Duelfer Report), the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [13] Surviving Iraqi nuclear facilities, which were almost entirely destroyed during the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, are controlled by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). The inspectors weren't worried when they were kicked out because they knew he didn't have a program. The only evidence at all for a program was fake (some aluminum tubes)

You forget that after the Kurdish slaughter Iraq endured 10 years of devastating sanctions. It nearly destroyed the entire nation, and we knew it. Thus the weak response when we attacked.

Of all your points the only left is the offer to suicide bombers, hardly a reason to lose 5,000 lives and trillions of dollars.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@2bITS
Iraq was all about oil. It just wasn't about oil the way most people think. It wasn't to go to Iraq, dig the oil up and ship it back to the USA. It was because Sadaam wanted to move the oil trading currency away from the US Dollar. If it was all about stopping strongmen we should have invaded 75% of the countries in Africa and S America and pretty much all of the Middle East. It was all about Sadaam trying to convince OPEC, China and other large oil producers to stop using the dollar as their trading currency.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

pragmatistferlife,
Have you read the Interim Progress Report from the ISG?

This from the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) (AKA "The Duelfer Report").
(ref wikipedia):

"After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on 3 October 2003. The team said it HAD found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons".

Note: They said they "HAD found evidence of WMD-related program activities".

===

Quote 2:

"The October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the UN and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002".

So it sounds like the ISG was not as convinced as you are that nothing prohibited by the UN Sanctions was going on in Iraq.

IF the UN thought nothing was going on... WHY did they approve resolution 1441? (final opportunity to comply with it's disarmament obligations and stating Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms of resolution 687)?

Read the long list of UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq if you think they were innocent!

===

Noodlekaboodle,
I thought I heard the twilight-zone theme when reading your conspiracy theory.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

2 bits

You must have misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about converting them to Christianity. I was merely pointing out that in those countries the political and religious are equal. So when we try to change their politics, we also are interfering with their religion. Islam and democracy are like water and oil. They don't mix very well.

Iron Rod
Salt Lake City, UT

In retrospect did our political leaders and our media leaders exercise due diligence with the "march to war with Iraq"?

to comment

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