Iraq War Officially Ends...

gimmesometruth27

i remember that it started with shock and awe and today it ends with a wimper.

over $800 billion, close to a trillion spent.

nearly 5000 american soldiers lost

over 30,000 wounded, with severe injuries, including paralysis and amputations.

this number does not count the potentially countless numbers of mental health issues and post traumatic stress disorders that our soldiers silently suffer from.

over 100,000 iraqi civilians murdered. this is a conservative estimate, while journals such as the lancet estimate the numbers much higher approaching the million mark.

and what have we gotten for all of that money and blood spent?

what did we win?

did we help the people of iraq gain their freedom and establish democracy in the country or did we just replace one despot with our guy?

did we stabilize the region or further destabilize it?

has the price of oil come down since we invaded? did that oil money pay for the war?

we will not know the answers to these questions for many years.

but the question i have is, was it worth the cost?

i say no.

there are kids alive today born in the last 10 years that have not known america in a time of peace.

that is really scary to me.

as a country and society i ask "god what have we done?"

Byrnzie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... aid-iraqis

The US is blind to the price of war that is still being borne by the Iraqi people


Every effort must be made to thwart those who seek to embellish and distort America's lamentable legacy in Iraq


Gary Younge
Guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 December 2011


On 19 November 2005 a US marine squad was struck by a roadside bomb in Haditha, in Iraq's Anbar province, killing one soldier and seriously injuring two others. According to civilians they then went on the rampage, slaughtering 24 people. They included a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair and a three-year-old child. It was a massacre. "I think they were just blinded by hate … and they just lost control," said James Crossan, one of the injured marines.

When he heard the news, Major General Steve Johnson, the American commander in Anbar province at the time, saw no cause for further examination. "It happened all the time … throughout the whole country. So you know, maybe, if I was sitting here [in Virginia] and heard that 15 civilians were killed I would have been surprised and shocked and done more to look into it. But at that point in time I felt that it was just a cost of doing business on that particular engagement."

Eight soldiers were originally charged with the atrocity. Charges against six were dropped, one was acquitted and the other is awaiting trial. We know this because a New York Times reporter found documents from the US military's internal investigation in a rubbish dump near Baghdad. An attendant was using them to make a fire to cook smoked carp for dinner.

The article ran on the same day that Barack Obama announced the withdrawal of American troops last week, hailing the almost nine-year war a "success", resulting in "an extraordinary achievement" that the troops can look on "with their heads held high". And so it is that America moves on, casting evidence of its war crimes in the trash, holding nobody accountable and choosing to understand defeat as victory and failure as success.

While the departure of American troops should be greeted with guarded relief (guarded because the US will maintain its largest embassy in the world there along with thousands of armed private contractors), every effort must be made to thwart those who seek to embellish and distort their lamentable legacy. You'd think that would be easy. The case against this war has been prosecuted extensively both in this column and elsewhere. (The argument that the removal of Saddam Hussein somehow compensates for the lies, torture, displacement, carnage, instability and humans rights abuses is perverse. They used a daisy cutter to crack a walnut.)

This war started out with many parents but has ended its days an orphan, tarnishing the reputations of those who launched it and the useful idiots who gave them intellectual cover. Nobody has been held accountable; few accept responsibility.

In any case, they could not have done it alone. It was only possible thanks to the systemic collusion of a supine political class and a jingoistic political culture, not to mention a blank cheque from the British government. When the war started, almost three-quarters of Americans supported it. Only politicians of principle opposed it – and there were precious few of those. When Nancy Pelosi was asked why she had not pushed for impeachment of Bush when she became speaker in 2006 she said: "What about these other people who voted for that war with no evidence … Where are these Democrats going to be? Are they going to be voting for us to impeach a president who took us to war on information that they had also?"

Today, withdrawing the troops is about the only truly popular thing Obama has done in the last two years. Polls show more than 70% support withdrawal, roughly two-thirds oppose the war, and more than half believe it was a mistake. But there is a difference between regretting something and learning from it. And while there is ample evidence of the former, there is little to suggest the latter.

According to Christopher Gelpi, a political science professor at Duke University who specialises in public attitudes to foreign policy, the most important single factor shaping Americans' opinions about any war is whether they think America will win. This solipsistic worldview is hardly conducive to the kind of introspection that might translate remorse into redemption.

It's a mindset that understands the war in Vietnam as being wrong not because an independent country was invaded, flattened, millions murdered and thousands tortured. It was wrong because the US lost.

And it pervades the political spectrum. Even when the war's critics slam the blood and treasure squandered, they usually refer only to American lives and American money. This is also the way pollsters frame it. A recent CBS poll asked: "Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?" (50% no, 41% yes), and "Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?" (67% no, 24% yes). The cost to Iraqis simply does not feature.

"It is the end for the Americans only," wrote Emad Risn, argued an Iraqi columnist in a government-funded newspaper. "Nobody knows if the war will end for Iraqis too." And few Americans seem to care. It's been some time since Iraq featured at all on the nation's priorities, let alone high. Rightly Americans fret about the fate of veterans returning to a depressed economy with a range of both physical and mental disabilities. But Iraqi civilians barely get a look-in.

According to the New York Times report, among the discarded testimony was an interview with Sergeant Major Edward Sax. "I had marines shoot children in cars, and deal with the marines individually, one on one, about it because they have a hard time dealing with that." When they told him they didn't know there were children on board he told them they were not to blame, claiming killing would impose a lifelong burden on them.

Progressives, seeking to link the economic collapse to military misadventure, often argue that nation building should begin at home, not in Iraq, thereby – wittingly or not – transforming Iraqis in the public imagination from victims of illegal warfare to recipients of illicit welfare. Without any apparent irony, Obama marked the end of the occupation by calling on others not to meddle in Iraq's internal affairs.

The combined effect of all of this is like breaking someone's jaw with your fist only to bemoan the excruciating pain that has been visited on your hand.

America is not alone in this. Amnesia and indifference are the privileges of the powerful. It is for the Kenyans and Algerians to recall the atrocities committed by the British and French under colonialism while the colonisers remain in flight from their history. "The essential characteristic of a nation is that all its individuals must have many things in common," wrote the 19th-century French philosopher Ernest Renan, "and must have forgotten many things as well."

No wonder then that a recent Pew poll found that despite all the evidence to the contrary 56% of Americans said they thought the invasion had succeeded in its goals while the number of those who think the invasion was the right decision stands at its highest in five years. The cost of doing business always seems more reasonable when someone else is paying the price.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...
as a country and society i ask "god what have we done?"

might i say 'God' is not who you should be asking that question of. Men did this and Men should answer for it.

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

over 100,000 iraqi civilians murdered. this is a conservative estimate, while journals such as the lancet estimate the numbers much higher approaching the million mark.

The Lancet report is the most accurate estimate undertaken to date. It's also the only peer-reviewed survey to have been undertaken.

The 100,000 figure is based on Iraq Body Count's figures, which are based merely on those deaths reported in the Western media. Considering most Iraqi civilian deaths were not reported by the Western media, their numbers are completely unreliable.

Newch91

So what did we get for all this fighting?

Byrnzie

Newch91 wrote:

So what did we get for all this fighting?

An increased risk or terrorist attacks, and a happy and prosperous arms industry. Not to mention all the companies like Halliburton who are counting their money and now licking their lips at the prospect of a war with Iran.

ledvedderman

Newch91 wrote:

So what did we get for all this fighting?

The fact that they will fall into a civil way and we will supply arms to one side, pissing of the other, and Al Qaeda recruiting new members.

I'm against pulling out though. This was going to happen If we were there or not.

catefrances

ledvedderman wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

So what did we get for all this fighting?

The fact that they will fall into a civil way and we will supply arms to one side, pissing of the other, and Al Qaeda recruiting new members.

I'm against pulling out though. This was going to happen If we were there or not.

so.. if 'this' was going to happen whether 'we' were there or not, what would be the point of staying?

usamamasan1

Freedom for Iraq.


Honor for our troops. A volunteer military.


fear freedom

Byrnzie

Don't feed the troll.

usamamasan1

Name calling is not ok.
Please discuss the topic.

Newch91

Byrnzie wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

So what did we get for all this fighting?

An increased risk or terrorist attacks, and a happy and prosperous arms industry. Not to mention all the companies like Halliburton who are counting their money and now licking their lips at the prospect of a war with Iran.

Sounds like we got nothing for $800 billion.

gimmesometruth27

why do we have to be in a state of perpetual war? why do we have to constantly beat war drums and pound our chest to get our way in this world?

iraq just ended yesterday.

but on the horizon we may end up having conflicts with iran, north korea (the 2 of 3 remaining members of the neo-con called 'axis of evil'".

we are flying drones over and bombing pakistan.

we are building a massive base in australia so we can fight china if necessary..

what is to keep us from escalating the war on drugs into a real war with mexico and the south american and central american countries?

all while unemployment is at 9% and people are starving in the the streets and suffering without health insurance because they can't afford it.

what could we have bought for that $800 billion?

how many schools and hospitals and roads and bridges could we have bought for that money? how many people could we insure for that amount of money??

what the fuck are we doing???

polaris_x

the war is not over ... US has like 15,000 private contractors on payroll over there ...

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i remember that it started with shock and awe and today it ends with a wimper.

over $800 billion, close to a trillion spent.

nearly 5000 american soldiers lost

over 30,000 wounded, with severe injuries, including paralysis and amputations.

this number does not count the potentially countless numbers of mental health issues and post traumatic stress disorders that our soldiers silently suffer from.

over 100,000 iraqi civilians murdered. this is a conservative estimate, while journals such as the lancet estimate the numbers much higher approaching the million mark.

and what have we gotten for all of that money and blood spent?

what did we win?

did we help the people of iraq gain their freedom and establish democracy in the country or did we just replace one despot with our guy?

did we stabilize the region or further destabilize it?

has the price of oil come down since we invaded? did that oil money pay for the war?

we will not know the answers to these questions for many years.

but the question i have is, was it worth the cost?

i say no.

there are kids alive today born in the last 10 years that have not known america in a time of peace.

that is really scary to me.

as a country and society i ask "god what have we done?"

with no disrespect intended towards you or your post bro, why is the word "murder" used when ever the American side of this war is commented on ?
how many people where murdered in the twin towers, or by the suicide bombers that targeted populated aeras around the world,I don't like the fact that we had to go to war either it scares the shit out of me thinking my nephew and niece had to go or my friends that had to go or that my son may someday have to go , we can call it murder all day long and describe it a million different ways but the bottom line is wrong or right it was a retaliation for crimes or murders commited by radical muslims and the countries that protected them and I know...the oil too right ? but anyway people are murdered everyday across the the globe over nothing more than a war some wacko sez is a holy war and all people that don't believe as they do must die, people on here seem to think America is the one and only bad guy in a war when infact I'll bet if take the time to really dig past the hype you might find that America is no more at faul than the other countries like iraq or any other country that incites war in any form for any reason and in the end it's all murder.

Godfather.

MayDay Malone

Shouldn't have been there to begin with, but pulling out now is WORSE.

Obama should have stayed the course- stayed to ensure Iraq's security, but winning wars is not something defeatists do very well.

The vacuum will be filled by Obama's good buddies: Iran, Russia, Syria, China.

MayDay Malone

Godfather. wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i remember that it started with shock and awe and today it ends with a wimper.

over $800 billion, close to a trillion spent.

nearly 5000 american soldiers lost

over 30,000 wounded, with severe injuries, including paralysis and amputations.

this number does not count the potentially countless numbers of mental health issues and post traumatic stress disorders that our soldiers silently suffer from.

over 100,000 iraqi civilians murdered. this is a conservative estimate, while journals such as the lancet estimate the numbers much higher approaching the million mark.

and what have we gotten for all of that money and blood spent?

what did we win?

did we help the people of iraq gain their freedom and establish democracy in the country or did we just replace one despot with our guy?

did we stabilize the region or further destabilize it?

has the price of oil come down since we invaded? did that oil money pay for the war?

we will not know the answers to these questions for many years.

but the question i have is, was it worth the cost?

i say no.

there are kids alive today born in the last 10 years that have not known america in a time of peace.

that is really scary to me.

as a country and society i ask "god what have we done?"

with no disrespect intended towards you or your post bro, why is the word "murder" used when ever the American side of this war is commented on ?
how many people where murdered in the twin towers, or by the suicide bombers that targeted populated aeras around the world,I don't like the fact that we had to go to war either it scares the shit out of me thinking my nephew and niece had to go or my friends that had to go or that my son may someday have to go , we can call it murder all day long and describe it a million different ways but the bottom line is wrong or right it was a retaliation for crimes or murders commited by radical muslims and the countries that protected them and I know...the oil too right ? but anyway people are murdered everyday across the the globe over nothing more than a war some wacko sez is a holy war and all people that don't believe as they do must die, people on here seem to think America is the one and only bad guy in a war when infact I'll bet if take the time to really dig past the hype you might find that America is no more at faul than the other countries like iraq or any other country that incites war in any form for any reason and in the end it's all murder.

Godfather.

Because apologists always jump at the chance.

dimitrispearljam

the number of dead people,soldiers,civilian is just shockin...

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

Shouldn't have been there to begin with, but pulling out now is WORSE.

Obama should have stayed the course- stayed to ensure Iraq's security, but winning wars is not something defeatists do very well.

The vacuum will be filled by Obama's good buddies: Iran, Russia, Syria, China.

what is the course?

what is the goal?

what is the end game?

when is enough enough?

and your line about obama's good buddies is appalling....

gimmesometruth27

which is precisely why america, the leader of the free world or whatever you want to call it this week should have fucking known better. we should have been the leader that we claim and pretend to be, and really researched the situation before going all shock and awe on a bunch of civilians.

indiscriminate killing is murder. no matter who does it.

you can take issue with my calling civillian deaths as murder all you want. but that is exactly what it is. state approved murder. nothing more, nothing less. in my post murder is implied when talking about soldiers, because getting murdered or murdering someone else at the push of a button is either in the job description or an occupational hazard.

does close to a million civilian deaths = the nearly 4000 killed on 9/11 and all of our dead soldiers? only if you belleve that americans are superior to those in the middle east. and that superiority complex is one of the main reasons we have the problems that we do have. our arrogance is sickening. and then we wonder why we are not liked in much of the world.

Godfather. wrote:

with no disrespect intended towards you or your post bro, why is the word "murder" used when ever the American side of this war is commented on ?
how many people where murdered in the twin towers, or by the suicide bombers that targeted populated aeras around the world,I don't like the fact that we had to go to war either it scares the shit out of me thinking my nephew and niece had to go or my friends that had to go or that my son may someday have to go , we can call it murder all day long and describe it a million different ways but the bottom line is wrong or right it was a retaliation for crimes or murders commited by radical muslims and the countries that protected them and I know...the oil too right ? but anyway people are murdered everyday across the the globe over nothing more than a war some wacko sez is a holy war and all people that don't believe as they do must die, people on here seem to think America is the one and only bad guy in a war when infact I'll bet if take the time to really dig past the hype you might find that America is no more at faul than the other countries like iraq or any other country that incites war in any form for any reason and in the end it's all murder.

Godfather.

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Shouldn't have been there to begin with, but pulling out now is WORSE.

Obama should have stayed the course- stayed to ensure Iraq's security, but winning wars is not something defeatists do very well.

The vacuum will be filled by Obama's good buddies: Iran, Russia, Syria, China.

what is the course?

what is the goal?

what is the end game?

when is enough enough?

and your line about obama's good buddies is appalling....

Your endless questions are appalling... Why, why, why? blah, blah, blah...

I remember you once said on here to somebody that the IRAQ war was illegal b/c it was never voted on.

Come on, man... you seem just as uninformed now as you were then.

And regarding Obama's good friends, I am sorry- I left out Chavez.

Our president is a bonafide Marxist. He has more in common with the leaders of the aforementioned countries than any of our former US Presidents. That is my humble opinion.