U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

[carepov]

Oh, but plenty of countries were behind that. Including Canada.

“We now have a coalition of the willing* who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing. And there are fifteen other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named, but will be supporting the coalition”

So that's 48 nations willing to own up to it and fifteen that weren't - but were supportive all the same. In fact, Canada was more supportive than just about any of the "willing."

Good to hear.

Yes, we were all wrong about Iraq. I am glad that you, unlike bush_cheney:

-Admit that Iraq was a mistake

-Value international cooperation

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, the USA was "loved by the world" on 9/12/2001 and had the opportunity to greatly advance their own self-interests. I am glad that the electorate finally recognized the incompetence of the Republican administration.

Meh....this is just political posturing. Americans are Americans regardless of party, and they will absolutely light an enemy's ass straight up either way. See: Obama, Pakistan, Drones, Hellfire Missile

Edited July 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

Another major attack will produce identical results.

Yes, if lessons aren't learned then the same mistakes will be made. If a major attack comes from Columbia, then a Republican President will invade Columbia, Venezuela and Cuba...

Edited July 9, 2013 by carepov

[carepov]

Meh....this is just political posturing. Americans are Americans regardless of party, and they will absolutely light an enemy's ass straight up either way. See: Obama, Pakistan, Drones, Hellfire Missile

Yes, but Obama was against the Iraq war and that won him votes.

Saddam was the wrong enemy at the wrong time.

Edited July 9, 2013 by carepov

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, if lessons aren't learned then the same mistakes will be made. If a major attack comes from Columbia, the A Republican President will invade Columbia, Venezuela and Cuba...

Mistake to you.....foreign policy for America, regardless of party. You might want to look at U.S. history and wars for "Democrats" to get a more balanced perspective.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but Obama was against the Iraq war and that won him votes.

So was John Kerry....he lost.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, we were all wrong about Iraq. I am glad that you, unlike bush_cheney:

-Admit that Iraq was a mistake

-Value international cooperation

I never supported going to war in Iraq, but I think it's a good thing that Saddam was taken out; things are seldom black and white.

[carepov]

So was John Kerry....he lost.

So who got it right, the electorate in 2004 or the electorate of 2008?

[bush_cheney2004]

So who got it right, the electorate in 2004 or the electorate of 2008?

They both "got it right". That's why they are called elections.

[dre]

No, I'm not factoring in the cost. To me, if the goal is achieved, it's a success. I do not think one can put a price tag on such things. Some things are, as I've said, priceless.

This is completely silly. You MUST have some sort of line where the ammount of success achieved would fail a cost benefit analysis... at least if youre capable of rational thought.

[carepov]

They both "got it right". That's why they are called elections.

So are you saying that Iraq was deemed a sucess in 2004 and a failure in 2008 and both judgements are correct?

[bush_cheney2004]

So are you saying that Iraq was deemed a sucess in 2004 and a failure in 2008 and both judgements are correct?

No...Iraq was already a continuum issue going back to 1990. The "electorate" didn't stop the invasion of Iraq in 2008, and the U.S. occupation wasn't concluded until 2011 by terms from the Bush administration, not Obama.

Edited July 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

No...Iraq was already a continuum issue going back to 1990. The "electorate" didn't stop the invasion of Iraq in 2008, and the U.S. occupation wasn't concluded until 2011 by terms from the Bush administration, not Obama.

No, in 2008 the American electorate finally same to their senses and realized that the Iraq invasion in 2003, and it's handling since, was a quagmire and just like you said:

American leadership is held "accountable" through the political process and elections.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, in 2008 the American electorate finally same to their senses and realized that the Iraq invasion in 2003, and it's handling since, was a quagmire and just like you said:

OK...that would explain why the Americans stayed in Iraq until December 2011. Of course, using your logic, few cared about the economy, or health care, or immigration, or even climate change. It was all about IRAK !!

Why do I get the feeling that you care more about Iraq than many Americans do ? What's it to you in Canada ? Why didn't you and your brave fence sitter Chretien stop the Americans, or at least sanction the U.S. for imports/exports ?

Edited July 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

OK...that would explain why the Americans stayed in Iraq until December 2011. Of course, using your logic, few cared about the economy, or health care, or immigration, or even climate change. It was all about IRAK !!

Why do I get the feeling that you care more about Iraq than many Americans do ? What's it to you in Canada ? Why didn't you and your brave fence sitter Chretien stop the Americans, or at least sanction the U.S. for imports/exports ?

Didn't you see any of the polls from 2006-2008? It WAS about Iraq. It wasn't me that made it the number one US election issue. The US electorate spoke lound and clear: the Bush Administration was a failure - they held the republican party accountable just like you said they should.

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't you see any of the polls from 2006-2008? It WAS about Iraq. It wasn't me that made it the number one US election issue. The US electorate spoke lound and clear: the Bush Administration was a failure - they held the republican party accountable just like you said they should.

Loud and Clear ? The "Republican Party" did quite well in the 2010 midterms, and Iraq was still occupied. Occupation was funded by the U.S. Congress through 2011. I think the U.S. managed to bomb another country too....Libya. Sure...loud and clear !

[Guest American Woman]

Didn't you see any of the polls from 2006-2008? It WAS about Iraq. It wasn't me that made it the number one US election issue. The US electorate spoke lound and clear: the Bush Administration was a failure - they held the republican party accountable just like you said they should.

Iraq definitely wasn't the key election issue in 2008; the economy was. Furthermore, as I recall, the majority of Americans still had more confidence in the Republican party's ability to handle terrorism. I would argue that Iraq was never the main issue; that no election was "about Iraq." Issues at home, those that affect the individual voter, would likely be of more importance to most, while for some, issues like gay marriage and abortion were major issues. Perhaps the media made the most 'noise' about Iraq, but when push comes to shove, I doubt if very many people 'voted on Iraq.' I'm a Democrat who did not support going to war in Iraq, but while that was an important issue, I would have never made that the most important factor in deciding my vote - and I don't know of anyone who did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq definitely wasn't the key election issue in 2008; the economy was.

Agreed...that's exactly how it was. The U.S. had already completed "The Surge" and Iraq was on the back burner, dominated by domestic issues. My neighbour's kid served in Iraq 2009 -2010, and he said it became boring as hell compared to his expectations and previous hot zones. Afghanistan became more of an issue as Obama doubled down with more troops and drone attacks. Iraq was in the rear view mirror.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well for the Axis yes, WWII was definately more of a failure...

For the Allies, no. Despite the greater costs, the benefits to WWII outweigh the costs. In other words the consequences of not fighting WWII were worse than the costs.

As is the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least for them and the immediate region. Giving up early and abandoning the Afghans could just as well have ended up in a Rwanda style massacre even more so in Iraq where the situation was always a breath away from a three way genocide.

I 100% agree with you, and Romeo Dallaire, that we have a responsibility to protect and that Rwanda was a shameful failure.

Yeah, and the people didn't think the cost of the mission was worth it, both financial cost as well as manpower wise. This is the same right now the same people who tend to complain about the cost of the mission will be the same crying about the consequences.

Darfur = failure, and The Dem. Rep. Congo is also an ongoing failure.

One of my biggest criticisms of the War on Terror is that so many resources (political, economic, military, etc...) have been wasted that the West now has little or no capacity or stomach to intervene in places where it should.

The west had little interest to begin with, but more to the point this is not the responsibility of the west and only the west, we have a number of emerging major economic and military powers that need to share in the burden of keeping the peace, its not just a US responsibility.

[carepov]

...

...

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote.

-Yes, usually the entire West is to blame, not just the US. I'm sure that we would agree that the blame of course lies also with the local leaders of failed states.

-Yes, once an invasion has started the invading powers should take full responsibility for ensuring that they do not abandon the people of that country. In this case, yes, concerns about cost pretty much go out the window.

-We also clearly agree that the West made mistakes in waging war in Afghanistan.

-We are both proud and thankful of all those that served and feel that the mistakes were primarily political and strategic.

Here is the only main point where we disagree:

Your opinion is that despite these mistakes the war was a success. My opinion is that these mistakes were bad enough to make the war a failure.

The war was a failure because the results were much lower than what could have been achieved (security and human development) and the costs (human suffering and financial) were much greater than they should have been. The biggest blunder was a lack of resources, especially 2003-2010. The US and Briton is to blame because of the stupid invasion of Iraq AND the rest of NATO is to blame for their lack of courage and commitment. The US is also to blame for acting like such assholes towards many of their own allies and therefore hindering cooperation.

[GostHacked]

Iraq definitely wasn't the key election issue in 2008; the economy was.

Spending the money to continue the War on Terror in two countries is part of the reason the economy is in trouble. The economy might have been the key issues, but the war spending contributes to the economic problems where the US simply cannot afford these wars.

[carepov]

Iraq definitely wasn't the key election issue in 2008; the economy was.

OK, AW and b_c, you are right and I retract my claim that the 2008 election was about Iraq. Here the electorate held the Republicans accountable for their failed economic policies.

The 2006 election (and in polling results around the same time) was where the electorate spoke out and clearly said, "the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake". Agreed?

Edited July 10, 2013 by carepov

[Signals.Cpl]

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote.

-Yes, usually the entire West is to blame, not just the US. I'm sure that we would agree that the blame of course lies also with the local leaders of failed states.

Here is the only main point where we disagree:

Your opinion is that despite these mistakes the war was a success. My opinion is that these mistakes were bad enough to make the war a failure.

The war was a failure because the results were much lower than what could have been achieved (security and human development) and the costs (human suffering and financial) were much greater than they should have been. The biggest blunder was a lack of resources, especially 2003-2010. The US and Briton is to blame because of the stupid invasion of Iraq AND the rest of NATO is to blame for their lack of courage and commitment. The US is also to blame for acting like such assholes towards many of their own allies and therefore hindering cooperation.

1) I dont blame the leadership of failed states, I blame the people of those states it all comes down to the people and what they are willing to let down.

2) There is no perfect war, by definition war is always a failure no matter how noble or righteous the cause is but ultimately the end result should speak for itself, regardless of the cost world war 2 was a success even though the allies under estimated the enemy, invested inadequate resources in to the war effort, both material and intellectual and were on the verge of defeat up to the point when the US and the USSR were dragged in to the war and even after that there were significant mistakes and waste of resources on the Allied side which prolonged the war and caused more pain and suffering for both the Allies and the Axis...

[jacee]

As is the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least for them and the immediate region. Giving up early and abandoning the Afghans could just as well have ended up in a Rwanda style massacre even more so in Iraq where the situation was always a breath away from a three way genocide.

Yeah, and the people didn't think the cost of the mission was worth it, both financial cost as well as manpower wise. This is the same right now the same people who tend to complain about the cost of the mission will be the same crying about the consequences.

The west had little interest to begin with, but more to the point this is not the responsibility of the west and only the west, we have a number of emerging major economic and military powers that need to share in the burden of keeping the peace, its not just a US responsibility.

Making war has nothing to do with "keeping the peace".

It's purely economic, designed to destabilize countries and grab resources, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers to put profits in the pockets of U.S. corporate stockholders who, no doubt, contribute heavily to get politicians to make war for them. Their profits, of course, are often stashed offshore untaxed.

To review:

Megawealthy pay politicians to make war in countries with untapped mega resources. Megawealthy suck resources out of destabilized war torn countries and pay no income tax on it.

Taxpayers pay politicians, pay for wars that benefit megawealthy, and pay interest on resulting debt ... to the megawealthy.

Taxpayer gets screwed.

Megawealthy get megawealthier.

War is a just a cash grab by the megawealthy.

Edited July 15, 2013 by jacee

[Topaz]

I agree with everything Jacee said and the fact the war makes money. The US is one of the largest seller of weapons, if not the largest and it probably the largest user of them too. I wonder once the Middle-East has been conquered, which area is next?