Intervention in Iraq

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    President Obama did and is doing the right thing in Iraq. The United States is dropping food to those in need. We are using Air Power, drones and Airplanes to desegregate ISIS power. We SHOULD NOT send half our ground forces into Iraq again.

    Its good we provide this limited support, but the people in this region need to accept the major burden for their own problems. We can't babysit the entire world. We can't afford it and we are deep into our own problems.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    It's interesting to note that there is a Christian sect in China with the bloodthirstiness of ISIS. The tie between religion and terror is getting stronger.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    Iraq is the future of America.

    If we allow the destruction of our national federal government by the states-righter's, the organized religions, and unscrupulous businessmen, the lid on the melting pot will blow off and we will follow Iraq into oblivion.

    Without any regard for the culture and makeup of Iraq, the Texas businessmen, with the help of the American military industrial complex, apparently murdered a rogue competitor of the oil market. And with the death of the Iraq leader, went the control the holds a nation together.

    The same thing can happen in America. The competing states, religions, corporations and rich and powerful are going full blast to accomplish the same for America. It seems like they just can't decide which rope to use, the one with the red and white stripes or the one with the crucifix.

    Saddam Hussein may have been a terrible man and ruler, but his government did its job. Our government is a terrible government but it has done better for us than any other could have done.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 14, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    Hey Liberal Ted -

    I took the liberty of editing your claims for accuracy.

    “ It was a cool September 11, 2001 day [GW had 9 months to get his act together]. 4 Jetliners were hijacked by terrorists [because GW IGNORED repeated FBI reports of increased terrorist activity, choosing instead to follow Reagan’s LAISSEZ FAIRE policy of letting the government run itself].

    “President Bush said the people who knocked down these towers is going to hear from us. [But instead he made an unprovoked attack on Iraq and killed over 100 thousand of their people]

    About 98% of the country supported Bush in going to war [because the Bush administration scared us half to deaths with LIES about numerous WMD’s].

    [Later No Drama Obama got Osama, and “Conservatives” almost choked on their chagrin.]

    Intelligence given to Bush indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use it or give it to terrorists to use it. [But Bush completely IGNORED intel that indicated the opposite.]

    No weapons were found [Because the UN and the Clinton administration had FORCED Saddam to get rid of them].”

    . . . You’re welcome.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 14, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    Patriot -

    "George W Bush handed Obama a stable Iraq."


    It was stable as long as we had an occupying force there . . . But that's untenable isn't it?

    All the hackneyed phrases emanating from Right Wing Radio and FOX "NEWS" have NO credibility.

    Here's a few I saw today.

    1. Hillary voted to go to war.

    - Yes, because she was trusting enough to believe the WMD LIES advanced by the Bush administration.

    2. Obama said he was going to take all troops out of Iraq.

    - Yes, becasue GW Bush signed an agreement that said so. In other words, GW Bush said all the troops would by out of Iraq by that date too.

    3. Obama is not a decisive enough leader to fight our enemies in force.

    - No, he's just not dumb enough to want to.

    4. Obama has attacked Iraq again. Now he's as much to blame as Bush.

    - That's just to ridiculous to rebut.

    Face it "Conservatives." Republican leadership has NOTHING good to offer this nation or the world.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 14, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    "The Yazidis and other minorities will be wiped out if no one is willing to help them. America can’t just turn a blind eye to that."

    So an entire ethnic group is going to be wiped out huh?

    Deseret News knows this?

    How? How is DN so in the know about this?

    And we have been helping them. That's what those airstrikes did . . . And the Humanitarian aid did.

    Hey 2 bits -

    " He said they were "Stable" and "Secure" just a few months ago!"

    And the situation was relatively stable and secure back then. But the whole idea for "nation building" was so ill-conceived and unworkable in the first place, it was DESTINED to fail.

    Obama did what he could, but you can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear.

    And you can't build a nation out of the shambles GW Bush left.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @What in Tucket?

    "I prefer helping with weapons and supplies than troops if possible. What I would like to know is who is backing these Jihadists?"

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you personally have volunteered, or your children have volunteered to serve on the front lines. Don't volunteer other people's children without volunteering yourself.

    Also, the weapons they have are AMERICAN weapons, stolen from the Iraqi military after we armed the Iraqi military.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    "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. We can’t change what happened then, and what’s happening now is a staggering humanitarian and geopolitical crisis brewing in that region."

    Wow, just wow.

    So, we can create the crisis and then throw our hands up and say "We can't change what happened then."

    Reminds me of the movie "Cold Mountain" when Ruby says " They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say ', it's raining!'

    As one who actually served in Iraq, I am not excited to send anyone else back there, but if we do, there needs to be a military draft with NO ONE exempt.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    If there's no value in reviewing the merits of the first exercise, aren't we just doomed to repeat it? How are we supposed to learn?

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    An Islamic State including the territory of greater Iraq and Syria is unaceptable. We must support those who oppose it as best we can. I prefer helping with weapons and supplies than troops if possible. What I would like to know is who is backing these Jihadists? I can see where they are being supplied by Russia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Who is left?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    @Esquire: Let me jog your memory. It was a cool September 11, 2001 day. 4 Jetliners were hijacked by terrorists (trained by Osama who Bill Clinton wouldn't kill). 3,000+ Americans were killed that day. President Bush said the people who knocked down these towers is going to hear from us. About 98% of the country supported Bush in going to war. I don't recall any congressmen or women walking around in Afghanistan trying to find Osama. I don't recall Obama leading Seal Team Six when Osama was killed either.

    Intelligence given to Bush indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use it or give it to terrorists to use it. Your beloved democrats agreed with the republicans. With their support a war was launched to rid a leader that had been murdering his own people.

    No weapons were found. Which is interesting considering we knew he had weapons and had used them. What ever did happen to them?

    Either way, I didn't live in fear that I had to vote republican. I had to vote republican out of fear, knowing how stupid democrats would handle a war.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    Had Obama not withdrew the troops early, then at least ISIS would still be sitting on the sidelines. instead Obama thought it was a better idea to take a tough stance on the president of Iraq and told him he's on his own. Knowing full well their military would collapse.

    Here's the other thing I don't understand about our country and leaders. We are arming ISIS on the Syrian side of the border. Then we are attacking and killing them on the Iraq side of the border. Wouldn't it make sense not to arm them, when they're determined to kill us?

    Then we give weapons and money to the muslim brotherhood and wonder why they have the capacity to attack and kill.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 1:14 p.m.


    I'm glad to hear you've come around recently. I agree with that you said.

    We can't occupy Iraq or the whole middle-east. But we also can't say, just do whatever you want we're not going to get involved. Because eventually it comes to our shores (like on 9/11 and the attacks leading up to 9/11).

    It's a tough problem. That's what Bush kept saying (when he was in office and even after). But some people just wouldn't hear it back then... they just insisted on just pumping the partisan rhetoric (why not if we can use it to get elected).

    Now that's a little hard to do (Since Barack Obama has now made the same decisions as George Bush when faced with this tough problem). So at lease we can commiserate a little now.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Anchovey Provo, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    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...

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 10:40 a.m.


    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???

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    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?

  • Jim G Mesa, AZ
    Aug. 14, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    "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?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    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!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    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...

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    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!

  • The Educator South Jordan , UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    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?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    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?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 14, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    "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.