Billions of $ paid and soldier killed for nothing!

[Godobeyer]

I agree with all your points concerning Iraq. Not arguing there but I'm suggesting to not let that generalize all of the US with current and future policies. There are many here very skeptical of any claims to war and have been voting against pro-war leaders.

Concerning the borders point. What about North Korea? I think we can all agree that the civilians within those borders are needlessly suffering. Do we as a community of nations continue to allow that?

For North Korea .

USA decide to protect NK and may Japan,why don't just let them protect them selfs, I suppose they can alone?

 

[LuisDantas]

What explains Obama's continuing the same policies?

I don't know how objective exactly is the claim that he did. Who knows what McCain or Romney would have done if elected? It seems to me that, at least in political circles, Obama has been accused of being too "soft" far more often than he has been told that he is too hawkish. I recall being told that the death of Bin Laden would likely be "decisive" in his reelection, even.

I hope I am wrong, in all honesty. I would like little better than to learn that Obama is a nutzo "hawk" that has been pressuring the USA towards a more military stance than it would otherwise pursue. But the evidence just isn't there for me to see.

There is also that danger which Eisenhower once warned us against: the existence of an Industrial-Military Complex that has grown way too big and too influential for anyone's good. Far too many congresspeople, politicians and even citizens favor "hawkish" postures, sometimes out of personal or political interest. For one thing, the military industry is a significant employer with a powerful lobby, and so is the Department of Defense. And then there is that gun craze that runs rampant in the general populace.

And why did Democrats re-elect him for doing this?

A major reason is because the Republicans promised them worse, I suppose. But I don't really know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know how objective exactly is the claim that he did.

He campaigned on ending the wars.
He didn't.
Looks pretty objective to me.

Who knows what McCain or Romney would have done if elected?

I'd expect McCain to be even more of a hawk.

It seems to me that, at least in political circles, Obama has been accused of being too "soft" far more often than he has been told that he is too hawkish. I recall being told that the death of Bin Laden would likely be "decisive" in his reelection, even.

Obama's refusing to attack Iran (despite calls by hawks & Israel) is one act earning my praise.
I saw Bin Laden's death as irrelevant symbolism.

I hope I am wrong, in all honesty. I would like little better than to learn that Obama is a nutzo "hawk" that has been pressuring the USA towards a more military stance than it would otherwise pursue. But the evidence just isn't there for me to see.

He could've ended the wars as he promised.
But instead he continued the Bush agenda.

There is also that danger which Eisenhower once warned us against: the existence of an Industrial-Military Complex that has grown way too big and too influential for anyone's good. Far too many congresspeople, politicians and even citizens favor "hawkish" postures, sometimes out of personal or political interest. For one thing, the military industry is a significant employer with a powerful lobby, and so is the Department of Defense. And then there is that gun craze that runs rampant in the general populace.

I've repeatedly challenged Eisenhower's claim (from another era, btw), & no one has ever offered any evidence.
I've worked in the defense industry (with one high ranking friend), & just didn't see any evidence of it.
Conspiracy fans love Eisenhower's claim, but this appears to just be confirmation bias found in a sound
coming from the moving lips of just another politician.

A major reason is because the Republicans promised them worse, I suppose. But I don't really know.

But even in the Dem primary race for his 2nd term, he beat out fellow Dems.
The obvious conclusion is that Democrats (like Republicans) are OK with war.

 

[suncowiam]

For North Korea .

USA decide to protect NK and may Japan,why don't just let them protect them selfs, I suppose they can alone?

You miss my point with North Korea (NK).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

Human rights
Main article: Human rights in North Korea
See also: Prisons in North Korea
North Korea is located in North Korea PukchangPukchang ChongjinChongjin HoeryongHoeryong HwasongHwasong KaechonKaechon YodokYodok
A map of political prison camps in North Korea. An estimated 40% of prisoners die of malnutrition.[225]
North Korea is widely accused of having one of the worst human rights records in the world.[226] North Koreans have been referred to as "some of the world's most brutalized people" by Human Rights Watch, because of the severe restrictions placed on their political and economic freedoms.[227][228] The North Korean population is strictly managed by the state and all aspects of daily life are subordinated to party and state planning. Employment is managed by the party on the basis of political reliability, and travel is tightly controlled by the Ministry of People's Security.[229]

Amnesty International also reports of severe restrictions on the freedom of association, expression and movement, arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment resulting in death, and executions.[230] North Korea also applies capital punishment, including public executions. Human rights organizations estimate that 1,193 executions had been carried out in the country by 2009.[231]

The State Security Department extrajudicially apprehends and imprisons those accused of political crimes without due process.[232] People perceived as hostile to the government, such as Christians or critics of the leadership,[233] are deported to labor camps without trial,[234] often with their whole family and mostly without any chance of being released.[235]

Based on satellite images and defector testimonies, Amnesty International estimates that around 200,000 prisoners are held in six large political prison camps,[233][236] where they are forced to work in conditions approaching slavery.[237] Supporters of the government who deviate from the government line are subject to reeducation in sections of labor camps set aside for that purpose. Those who are deemed politically rehabilitated may reassume responsible government positions on their release.[238]

North Korean defectors[239] have provided detailed testimonies on the existence of the total control zones where abuses such as torture, starvation, rape, murder, medical experimentation, forced labor, and forced abortions have been reported.[130] On the basis of these abuses, as well as persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, forcible transfer of populations, enforced disappearance of persons and forced starvation, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry has accused North Korea of crimes against humanity.[240][241][242] The International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK) estimates that over 10,000 people die in North Korean prison camps every year.[243]

The North Korean government rejects the human rights abuses claims, calling them "a smear campaign" and a "human rights racket" aimed at regime change.[244][245][246] In a report to the UN, North Korea dismissed accusations of atrocities as "wild rumors". The government also admitted some human rights issues related to living conditions and stated that it is working to improve them.[247]

If the conditions get worse in NK, shouldn't other countries do something to help?

I agree that countries like Japan and Ukraine should do more to bolster their own defense, but if they become the target of war then other nations should assist.

 

[Acim]

Hello everyone

Billions of $ paid and soldiers killed for nothing!

As it's known USA and UK invade Iraq because of lie ,that Iraq had nukes.
and remove dictaric regime (as they said)

and result civil war in Iraq,and terrorism, that's what Iraqis and world benefits from that war in 2003.

After paying billions of dollars and many soldiers killed or injured,
my question what USA and UK, what is the benefits ?

-Why don't UK/USA courts don't judge/punish whom responsible for lost souls and billions for nothing ?

I was one that was against invasion of Iraq when it occurred, but not vehemently opposed.

I dislike the lying on top of the lying, such as your claim that it was about the nukes (only). That wasn't the lie originally told, nor the alleged one. It was weapons of mass destruction. Or as one politician said in Oct. 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Anyone care to guess who said this?

To me, it is abundantly clear that peace in the ME was not existing in 2002 (or earlier) and I find it purely propaganda to suggest the U.S. and its allies are responsible for a now warring ME. I do think U.S. facilitated warring factions to speed things up. And did so under the guise of "that part of the world deserves democracy" as well as anywhere. I say guise because it strikes me as half lie/half truth as to the intentions for why invade Iraq. I find it disingenuous to revisit that period as if Saddam were some noble statesmen that was peaceful with all his national neighbors and the U.S. came in and destroyed that peace. As the quote above (and several others like it) suggested, the country of Iraq was strongly believed to be allowed as training grounds for any militant force that wished to strike at Western aggression and imperialism. Obviously, Western leader types were not going to allow that training to go unchecked and would seek to decimate national leaders that thought it perfectly fine to support it.

To me, that's the real reason for invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has added benefits of halting any program of WMD's (or potentially nukes) and taking a world leader (Saddam) out of commission.

I believe I understood all of this in 2003, and still opposed the invasion.

We shall perhaps never know the alternate course of world history had U.S. not invaded. But to think there would be peace in the ME from not invading, I see as fanciful thinking. For some, I think the argument is it could conceivably have been far worse had Saddam stood up to the West, continually tout them and allowed to remain in power without any international repercussions. I think it likely that what occurred in Syria would've occurred in Iraq sooner, or perhaps more likely that what NK is today is what Iraq could've become in 1st decade of this century.

As one who is in another thread arguing for no actual benefit from self defense (of the violent kind), I do not see how it would benefit US to invade another country under guise of 'national defense.' But also don't see this as being about the U.S. alone. Nor the West alone. World seems very content with logic of the best defense is a strong (violent, aggressive) offense. I wish it were otherwise, and wish the ME were example of this given how close it is to what many in ME deem is "holy ground." If that region is justifying attacks as good for world morality, I'm unclear how anyone thinks we will get around this, other than to revisit the notion, as often as humanly possible, that this defense (of the violent kind) crap isn't working out so well for us.

Btw, I got that politician's quote noted above from this link (and have referenced that type of quote, which were occurring prior to Bush ever becoming POTUS) dozens of times whenever the false narrative is seen as being worthy of mentioning yet again.