Just to be consistent, I don't approve of most military options used by our
current President. But the difference between me and say Mike Richards, I
don't agree or disagree based on the party of who is President. I'm
actually consistent on my position. Getting into Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong
and staying in there any longer than needed is wrong.
There were at least 1,684 soldiers who were killed in that country since Obama
took office. He is the Commander in Chief. He is a Constitutional Expert. He
continued the war at a horrendous cost to the families of those 1,684 soldiers.
Until his supporters demand an accounting from him for those deaths, nothing
that they say about Constitution authorization on any subject is valid. A police officer will cite anyone speeding through a school zone. He
will not use some flimsy excuse that he is trying to "taper off"
speeding. His concern is for the children in that zone. The Commander in
Chief's first concern must be the welfare of his soldiers. If the war is
just and Constitutional, he will send them into battle, knowing that the price
of freedom is high. But, if the war is not Constitutional, as stated by many on
this forum, his first duty is to protect the lives of those soldiers.I agree with the Deseret News. The price for freedom for that people was paid
in part by patriots from America. God bless them all.
Mike Richards neglected to explain how the invasion of Afghanistan squares with
the Constitution. I must have missed that article in there that justifies
starting wars in foreign nations. So much for the pronouncements of the founding
fathers who warned us against meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.
Defending this invasion paves the way for more "humanitarian" adventures
in the future. Is that what really want?
Tyler D, "As far as the war being worth it, who knows? Let’s ask our
grandchildren since they’re the ones footing the bill."
That was my point, minus the money issue "Wait until you see what they do
with democracy before you start declaring it was worth it."
@Tyler, You may have overreached on my comment. I didn't say
anything Congress approves is Constitutional.But only Congress can
declare war (not the President). ANY President needs to get Congress approval
to involve the United States in a war. Bush did.===I
don't know if I have Constitutional issues with Social Security, Medicare,
Obamacare and all other policies... haven't thought about it. But I
didn't say that anything Congress approves is Constitutional. Just that
the Constitution requires Congress approve taking the country to war. And we
did in Afghanistan. They approved almost unanimously.===Obamacare seems to be on the line (at least the individual mandate). It was
declared unconstitutional by several courts. The only way the Supreme Court
could find to let it stand was to call it a "Tax". So it kinda
remained law on a technicality (that we call it a "Tax").=== I don't claim to know a ton about the Constitution. But
I know that nothing done in Afghanistan was unconstitutional. And that
accusation is what I was responding too... Not the expanded scope that ANYTHING
Congress approves becomes Constitutional. That's obviously not true.
@2bitsOk, so all I can find about Mali is that we sent 10 guys to act as
liasons and not participate in active combat. Ya, that's not a war.
Pakistan, well on one hand he actually got the guy who planned 9/11, unlike the
war in Afghanistan, on the other hand it probably wasn't
constitutional..... Libya is the place you mention that makes me laugh, you were
one of the many who were angry about the way Obama handled the Benghazi attack
and wanted to know why so few troops were there to protect the ambassador, you
really can't have it both ways on that one.
@2 bits – “I think it was Constitutional. Congress approved.
That's what the Constitution requires.”And if you would
have added at the beginning “not only I, but the Supreme Court” then
this statement (which I agree with by the way), is all we would ever need to
know when looking at any of the policies and programs of our country.So once and for all (looking at you Mr. Richards) can we put to bed the
“Constitutional” debate on Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare and
all the other policies that have passed this test.Unless of course
you believe that only you own interpretation of our charter should govern, in
which case I would submit you do not believe in a republic or democracy and
would prefer a dictatorship (or more likely a theocracy).
Noodlekaboodle,If you have such Constitutional problems with
Afghanistan... How do you defend Obama's decision to use American Military
in Libya, Pakistan, Mali, etc... Countries we are not at war with... Countries
that never threatened or attacked us.... without Congressional approval?Congress hasn't approved ANY military action in these nations who
didn't attack us! But we attacked them! Why no problem for you?
Partisan blindness?How is bombing countries that didn't
threaten us... with no Congressional approval... better than responding to our
being attacked on 9/11??Just because Obama did it instead of a
Noodlekaboodle,If you don't know what Afghanistan and the Taliban had
to do with 9/11 by now... I can't help you. Nothing I can say would help
you understand.Iraq is a different war. Different topic.===I think it was Constitutional. Congress approved.
That's what the Constitution requires.If we were attacked (and
we were) the Constitution doesn't limit our response to the nation of
citizenship of the individuals on the planes. They were just soldiers,
mercenaries. Their leaders and training camps... were in Afghanistan.You know who planned 9/11 right? And where they lived, trained and were
radicalizing people interested in jihad... right?. Your pretense
(that we can only respond to the nations of citizenship of the people on the
planes... not where the people who said they had more attacks planned were
operating at the time... not where their leaders, trainers, AlQaeda generals
were at the time )... just seems silly. No Constitutional problem
with Afghanistan. In fact.. if our leaders had done nothing... they would have
been neglecting their Constitutional duty to protect us.
@ J Thompson, Obama did nothing to stop the war in Afghanistan? Are you kidding
me? He's pulling troops out in a responsible way rather than running or
abandoning the mess he was handed. I'm not really sure what your pont is.
A lot of people are up in arms about the Constitutional authority to use the
military to establish democracy in foreign lands. Have they written President
Obama? After all, he is the Commander in Chief. He is ultimately responsible
for sending troops and munitions to those countries. He has been in office for
five years. It's HIS war now. He did nothing to stop it. He's a
"Constitutional Expert", so surely he has studied the Constitution and
decided that he really did have authority to send our sons and daughters to
foreign lands, to be shot at, to be wounded, and to be killed.If
those who shake their fists at the illegality of using our military to assist
other nations were honest, they would also shake their fists at FDR for starting
Social Security, at Johnson for starting Medicare, at Obama for ObamaCare and
for doing nothing about those other unauthorized programs. If they were honest,
they would demand that those items, which approach 75% of the budget, be
eliminated, that people be repaid their Social Security "taxes" and that
government stay out of unauthorized "duties".
Noodlekaboodle:You beat me to the punch. If Mike Richards is a true
Libertarian or Constitutional scholar, he would by no means support this war. I
guess he's a partisan neocon after all.
@2 BITSYou and Mike Richards always pull out the constitution when you
disagree with something you find liberal. So here's my question, what does
9/11 have to do with two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. The
attackers were Saudi's, they were headquartered in Pakistan. So i'm
sure going after Iraq and Afganistan clearly provides for the common
defense......... Or if you agree with it does it not matter if something is
constitutional or not?
"IMO... the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 since then... is
proof that it was worth it."If the goal was preventing another
911, there would certainly have been ways to accomplish that, that would have
been far lest costly in terms of $$ and lives.
$3 trillion and thousands dead? How do I, Joe Sixpack, benefit from
Bush's war in Afghanistan? Why did we invade Afghanistan in the
first place? I don't remember Afghanistan ever attacking us.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTIMO... the fact that we haven't had
another 9/11 since then... is proof that it was worth it.I
don't care if they adopt our form of democracy. I think we needed to do
what we did though, to keep the conflict over there where it starts... and not
over here where it ends.They claimed they had other attacks in the
works... we had to do something!We couldn't just let the
attacks come and do nothing!12:35 p.m. April 9, 2014========= 19 people 2 bits, 19 people pulled of 9/11And we did do somehting.Bush -- killed 150,000 and
spend $3.3 Trillion.Pres. Obama actually ended it with; Good Intelligence, some drone strikes, 3 helicopters,and
less than 15 minutes with 30 Navy Seals, in PAKISTAN.Bush's plan made Military contractors and Wallstreet investors insanely
wealthy and did nothing to change the situation, while Obama's
plan worked. I disagree with you, and the Deseret News.NOT worth it.
IMO... the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 since then... is proof
that it was worth it.I don't care if they adopt our form of
democracy. I think we needed to do what we did though, to keep the conflict
over there where it starts... and not over here where it ends.They
claimed they had other attacks in the works... we had to do something!We couldn't just let the attacks come and do nothing!
Mike,Is "liberating the people of another country"
enumerated in our constitution?
@mike richards. Just the other day you said the government doesn't give us
freedom or rights but god gives us freedom and rights.Which is it?
I believe the 17 duties enumerated in the constitution does not
mention nation rebuilding.
I wonder if the Afghans have the same sort of Democracy we enjoy here in
America?You know -- Corporations are PEOPLE, and
Unlimted Money legally buys and bribes UnLimited Political favors.Who's going to attack, invade, and occupy US to save us from ourselves?
@pragmatistferlife – “Democracy and elections can be nasty little
things leading to awful results. Read World on Fire, a well documented history
of democracy gone bad.”Democracy per se is not the
problem… it’s uneducated or morally corrupt people. Sadly, many are
simply not ready for democracy and will make bad choices when given the chance.
But without giving people the opportunity to make those choices, how will they
ever learn? I haven’t read the book, but would guess most of
the problems are not long standing democracies, but democracies that elect bad
people who afterwards tear down any institutions that support real democracy
(which is the only self-correcting mechanism to check government power).As far as the war being worth it, who knows? Let’s ask our
grandchildren since they’re the ones footing the bill.
I'm wondering WHO at the Deseret News is an actual conflict Veteran?Who was deployed?Who lived away from their families 6 out of the
last 10 years[2 year LDS missions do NOT ocunt by a long shot]Who went through a divorce?Who missed most of the children's
lives?Who can't get a good job now?Who suffers PTSD?and
WHO will never walk again?You find THAT guy, and have
him tell us it was worth it!
Why do some people think that they are the only people on earth who deserve to
be free? Why do they think that dollars are more important than freedom? What
price would they pay to secure those liberties for themselves and for their
children?Freedom comes at a great cost. When the colonies rebelled
against King George, those colonies sacrificed everything. That was not nearly
enough. France came to our aid. Without the help of that "world
power", we would probably still be under the rule of Great Britain. The cost
in dollars and in lives was horrendous, but it was necessary.To my
knowledge, no country on earth was "given" freedom. It has to be
earned. It has to be paid for by blood, both from the citizens of those
countries and of those who care enough to send their sons and daughters to
expand freedom.The cost was great, but the people have started to
throw off the yoke of oppression. They have started. The patriots who made it
possible will not be forgotten.
"In our opinion: Afghanistan's election a sign that war was worth the
cost’"And most people that say that-
Didn't pay for it. That will be handled by future generations-
Didn't get deployed- Didn't lose a child or sibling- Had
nothing investedYes, I guess that under those circumstances, you may
conclude that it was "worth it"I dont believe it was
Since bringing democracy to the Afghans was never a purpose for invading, even
if the country turns into an Islamic Sweden it would be by accident rather than
by design. As for the cost, today's DN comments could be right - after
another four or five valid elections. We need to keep in mind that this is
really a tribal society, and the Afghans certainly didn't ask the US for a
So the wealthy can buy their politicians too?So freedom of speech
means legalized bribery? We have no right to spread our system of
To say the war was worth the cost over one election and not knowing how it will
all play out once the U.S. effeectively leaves is a little premature. Frankly,
I don't see how it was worth the cost to the U.S. The Biden
"doctrine" would have been better - surgical strikes instead of neo-con
An election is just the beginning. Wait until you see what they do with
democracy before you start declaring it was worth it. Democracy and
elections can be nasty little things leading to awful results. Read World on
Fire, a well documented history of democracy gone bad. My guess
though is cthat this piece is not so much a thoughtful declaration as a partisan
‘In our opinion: Afghanistan's election a sign that war was worth the
cost’======= Ummmm....150,000 Muslims
dead5,000 Americans dead75,000 Americans wounded$3.5
Trillionand 7.5 million votesThat equals =50 votes
per dead muslim1,500 votes per dead American100 votes per wounded
American$466,666 per voteI don't know what math you are
using, but I don't think it was worth it.