Comments about ‘In our opinion: Intervention in Iraq’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

"There is no value in rearguing the merits of America’s involvement in the Iraq War, which seems to be the focus of many of the critics."

I disagree. In examining what we did when we invaded Iraq we understand how hopeless our intervention is now. We toppled the only secular government in the region - Hussein's, who was a strongman who could hold Iraq together and keep the various degenerate brands of Islam at bay. Like Tito in Yugoslavia once Saddam was gone the place become ungovernable.

Perhaps a rescue operation of some sort for this sect is possible. But as far as fixing Iraq, it can't be done.

clearfield, UT

What we have learned from the Middle East wars is this. Sometimes you can get in, get the job done, and get out. The first gulf war. Or you can get in, and be stuck trying to win and get out. Iran and Afghanistan. Or you can not get in at all and wait to see the consequences. Left wing isolationism. I used to believe THAT was the way to go. But, in the most dangerous world ever, what with NBC warfare and suicide terrorism, we are in danger of allowing the worst forces in the world to get enormous wealth and power. If they do, ultimately they will come after us. They did it on 911, and only a fool would believe they don't want to do it again. So, we have no option but engage the enemy now, or put our head in the sand and wait for the next attack. Two bad choices, but there is not a realistic third one. I myself don't think the sand is safe enough. I did a few months ago, but not now.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

But Obama is NOT turning a "blind eye." There are now 1000 US military experts in Irbil and armaments are flowing in to support the Peshmerga. US airstrikes have beaten back the terrorists and they are now in retreat. DNews editorial writers need to read the newspaper.

Maybe now isn't the time to "argue the merits of US involvement in Iraq" (although the DNews was all in favor of it back in '03). But it's still a tragedy that the Cheney Oil Company created this mess in the first place--a tragic outcome that many of us foresaw long ago.

Provo, UT

By show of hands, who here believes that Iraq will remain a united country and a democracy over the next 10-20 years?


So aren't we sorta postponing the inevitable?

Why put Americans in harms way while wasting more money to merely postpone the inevitable?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Ignoring the reasons why we invaded in the first place takes away the entire objective and purpose of the war. Not only that, but it perpetuates the problems we currently face.

How many more lives must be lost? How many more trillions must be wasted? If you're somebody like Dan and you don't want to remember the objective and purpose, then I guess Iraq will be worth any and all costs!

I'm sorry dan, that you and your president didn't think about their consequences before pushing the red button. We invaded to get Saddam and to destroy WMDs. We got Saddam and the WMDs didn't exist. It's over.

American cannot continue to throw endless amounts of lives and dollars down the drain in Iraq. Our continual intervention in Iraq will destroy us. Gay marriage didn't destroy the Romans. Perpetual war which weakened them to the point that vandals could take Rome did. America cannot afford to be exploited as the world's policeman any longer.

The Educator
South Jordan , UT

What's Dan's military experience?

I think it should be a law that if you want intervention in a certain country, then you volunteer yourself or you must send one of your children to go. It's just far too easy for people like Dan who live in a mansion in north Salt Lake to demand more military intervention while he enjoys his huge house and nice cars. It's far too easy to send other children to the worst place possible: war. while you're get to serve missions, go to school, and get married and have families.

Anyone else agree with me that the loudest proponents of the Iraqi war has been people who have never served? Doesn't it make sense that those who want more must slap some skin into the fight and serve?

Hayden, ID

In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior varsity basketball players, downplaying their threat as small-league.
Jihadists and terrorist never had it so good since Obama's election!

Springville, UT

The problems of the Middle East show that U.S. intervention for the wrong reasons will always come back to haunt us. From overthrowing a democratic government in Iran in 1953 to the Bush fiasco of invading Iraq on fraudulent grounds, we usually make things worse when we are driven by our own self interests. The consequences are not worth it.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I don't know if I'm OK with us being the World's police again or not. I want to hear what other people think.

Especially Democrats who kept harping on Republicans about "How is Iraq threatening the United States"? We need to ask ourselves now... Are is our use of the military defending the United States THIS time?


IMO it IS in the US interest to have a stable Iraq. But so many Democrats said that didn't matter before... I'm wondering what they think now.

There were humanitarian reasons for President Bush deciding to enforce the 17 broken UN Resolutions in Iraq and Saddam Husain's killing his own people for being the wrong party, or the wrong religion. (remember he was convicted and executed by his own people for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982 and for ordering the execution of thousands of innocent people.

Those who think Husein was a sweetheart...
Google "Dujail Massacre of 1982"
"Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983"
"The al-Anfal Campaign"
"Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs"
"Post-Uprising Massacres of 1991"

And tell me there was no humanitarian cause in Iraq then...

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I have no problem with going back and re-hashing why Bush decided to use military force in Iraq.... but let's not COMPLETELY dismiss discussing why we are doing it THIS time too.

I think they are pretty much the same reason (minus WMDs) but that was NOT the only reason back in 2002 either.

But lets not just discuss one... let's discuss both.


Re: "you and YOUR president didn't think about their consequences"...

Here we go with the "He's not MY President" bunk from the Democrats.

I hate to break it to you but... Bush was ALL of our President back then (not just Dan's). And Obama is ALL American's President today.


You can harp on WMDs and gay marriage today... but that has NOTHING to do with what's happening in Iraq and does NOTHING to help justify sending troops to Iraq again.

Can you justify Obama's decision to attack them again? He said they were "Stable" and "Secure" just a few months ago!

Jim G
Mesa, AZ

"Many conservatives argue that none of this would have been necessary had the president not been so eager to pull all troops out of Iraq without leaving any behind to support the fledgling government.

That may well be true, but, at this point, it’s also irrelevant."

I disagree with this point completely. You can argue the merits of getting involved in Iraq in the first place, but you can't argue with the foolhardiness and shallow thinking that let a hasty retreat make pointless the loss of thousands of American lives there. The one way to avoid such lethal mistakes in the future is to recognize, remember, and avoid them.

In the current situation, it might be well to remember that following WWII, a number of nations were faulted for failing to stop the holocaust. Their excuse was they didn't know it was happening. One could make the point that they ignored evidence that would force them to acknowledge the horror. Nevertheless, we know what is happening in Iraq now, so will we simply sit back and idly witness another holocaust?

clearfield, UT

2 bits

Well if you read my first post you know that I believe that Islamic terrorism is here to stay, unlike the USSR. And I believe that sooner or later the new Bin Laden will rise up and plan the next 911. Are we together still? If not then what follows won't compute. So if we can assume that radical Islam won't disappear any time soon, (in fact it seems to be getting stronger) and that they can't be negotiated with, unlike the USSR, then what do we have left? Attack where we can, or wait and see? So far even a short term wait and see from Obama has shown that Islamic radicals will take the opportunity to advance and gain more wealth and territory. Attack when we can puts us in the awful position of being constantly at war. But not fighting them won't cause them to like us and be nice to us. So there we are. Two options as I see it. Wait for the next 911, or try to stop it before it happens. What do you see?

Sandy, UT

Here we go again with the "this time it's different" argument. The ONLY reason we "should" come to the rescue is to control who does and doesn't get oil. It's always about the oil.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT


I don't disagree with anything you said.

What I'd like to know NOW is... where were you when President Bush made the same calculation "Wait for the next 911, or try to stop it before it happens"?

If you were playing the rhetoric games I get from Maverick, OMM, UltraBog and others... I just see more partisan political rhetoric... IF you were WITH Bush and supported him then.... Then I give you a big thumbs up.

It was the same thing then as it is now... do we leave them alone and wait for the next 9/11... or do something to help prevent it now...

Bush was criticized by the Left for being "Premptive" then. Is what you proposed at 9:45 not a preemptive policy?

Like you said... "We have two options as I see it. Wait for the next 911, or try to stop it before it happens"... which are you now???
And which were you back in 2002???
Are you consistent, or does your view change depending on which letter is by the President's name???

Somewhere in Time, UT

We need to help these people. They are innocent victims. ISIS is an existential threat to the world. We have to go back in whether we like it or not and no matter what the history is. At this point is doesn't matter. We have to do what is necessary now. Our survival could well be at stake.

Provo, UT

Why is it that when Obama receives "bad intelligence" it is everyone's fault, but his own? Why can Susan Rice go on national news shows and spout off about some stupid video...? Now, she serves as Obama's national security advisor? Why can George W. Bush receive "bad intelligence" and yet he is demonized for his decisions, which by the way, he ran past Congress, etc.??!! We have innocent folks hunkered down on a mountain top without food and water in Iraq and we do practically nothing. Shameful! When ISIS shows up in New York, as they have promised, we'll probably still be fawning over reality show "stars" and not even have a clue as to who the guys in black hiding behind women and children are... What a brave, new world...

clearfield, UT

2 bits

Good question. My view has changed about the Bush doctrine of and trying to bring a civilized democracy to Middle East Arab Islamic countries. My conclusion now, and has been for some years, is that it won't work because the religion of Islam will always supercede the political system. We sort of imposed democracy on Iraq. Yes they had elections, but how long can/will that last after we leave? Not long from what it seems. Seems radical Islam will ultimately take over most countries in that region. Even after years of trying to form an Iraq army to stabilize the country, it has not worked. One other area I was with only months ago that I now rethink is the idea of the U.S. just getting out of the Middle East all together and letting it become what ever it becomes. But, now I see that if we leave it to radical Islam to take over a country like Iraq, get wealth and power from it, they will sooner of later try another 911 type attack. We need to stop that over there before it happens here.

Cedar Hills, UT

George W Bush handed Obama a stable Iraq. Obama has lost every thing gained and the country is now in the hands of terrorists and burning to ground. This is the end result of liberal policy.

Kearns, UT

We need to send the troops back in. We need to take the handcuffs off of them and let them fight like they have been trained (keep the micro managing civilians and idiot rules of engagement out). Our military is for the most part honorable and will do it right. They just need to be allowed to fight and win.

Will some innocents get killed? Yes they will. An unfortunate part of war. But in the long term it is better for the whole world to have these ISIS people eradicated from the face of the earth. I'd compare the ISIS folks to Pol Pot and his bunch.

My son the Lieutenant will be happy to serve in your place and will serve honorably.

Springville, UT

@ Mountanman, tell that to bin Laden (who Bush could never find), the Benghazi ringleader, and the recipients of drones. Your comment is nonsense. Here's the deal: The Republicans couldn't or wouldn't go after terrorists, because to do so would mean they could not frighten American into voting for them. Bush-Cheney didn't want us feeling confident and secure.

to comment

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