>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe?
When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amounts of soldiers to "keep us safe"?
If anything, the US military has made me unsafe. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Torture and drone warfare have created scores of "terrorists" - people angry that their civilian family members were killed in a war of aggression. You can trace a direct path in history from the invasion of Iraq to the rise of ISIS.
Meanwhile, money that could have been spent of social services funded these wars - leading to an economic climate so bleak that voters elected a fascist president in hopes of changing their station in life.
I'm no pacifist, but wars of aggression are not "keeping us safe" in any sense of the phrase.
Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner on an overpass: "thank you for our freedom, now go home".
I kind of think they expected it to be a repeat of Panama with a quick game of "capture the dictator" followed by installing a puppet government but the general level of incompetence (i.e. de-Ba'athification of the government) didn't let that happen.
And, yes, I do kind of consider myself a pacifist who just happened to have gone down to Panama and was involved in both Iraq invasions.
Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s.
Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes.
If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people blame for the poor state of things...are we really the good guy? I don't know if your ignoring this fact or just talking nonsense. The US destroyed Iraq and it has never recovered, and this is a widely accepted fact.
Stupid comment imo, can't believe this is serious and hasn't been called out already.
> US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes.
You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right?
And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example.
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting gassed...again), kind of makes you wonder if maybe the two are related, maybe just a little?
So, yeah, I can see why you think the big cuddly bear Saddam Hussein was the victim in all this...
Yes, the sanctions are a result of the invasion. But in their goal of ousting Saddam, they destroyed an entire nation. There are better ways.
They were UN sanctions pushed for by the US but many involved spoke out against them during the period and afterwards. Many more are involved in the sanctions process than the ones who decide on the sanctions...
I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't bad, but we did more damage to Iraq than he could have ever done. We fucked up in Iraq.
No sane Iraqi person is happy that the US got it's hands in Iraq, only those in personal opposition to Saddam who lied to the US in order to support an invasion. Dude, even Republicans have started to see the Iraq war for the abosolute sham that it was.
What, you think the US is a big cuddly altruistic bear trying to free people all around the world? Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.
> Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.
Pointing out facts (which you go on to agree with) is the stupidest comment you've seen on HN?
And, you know, "people" speak out against everything so that's not really a valid point -- "unnamed people said UN sanctions against Iraq were a war crime, news at 11..."
> Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of.
I was just talking about my personal experience dealing with the good people of Iraq (in my previous comment not the one correcting you for "talk[ing] about subjects you know nothing about") during and after the second invasion, who's speaking for them?
>Pointing out facts (which you go on to agree with) is the stupidest comment you've seen on HN?
My apologies for the misunderstanding, I was referring to the original comment in which the US was the savior of the Iraqi people.
>And, you know, "people" speak out against everything so that's not really a valid point -- "unnamed people said UN sanctions against Iraq were a war crime, news at 11..."
This article has some names of notable critics, searchable as well.
>I was just talking about my personal experience dealing with the good people of Iraq during and after the second invasion
You are an American, perhaps ex military? My only explanation for this is that the people who talk to you on the subject are self selecting, giving you a biased view of the situation. I can certainly say that what you propose is a narrative that even some of the most ardent war hawks from the bush era wouldn't claim.
It's not a pointless discussion to me. It can be useful to someone reading this thread in the future to have different viewpoints and decide who they agree with.
Sure, but in this case it would have been infinitely better if we did nothing at all.
We invaded because of supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not there, it was a mistake pure and simple.
I'm still surprised by the way the American people accept Bush in society with his cutesy paintings when he got the US into this expensive mess. Guess that's what we get for electing a dummy. But hey, as long as he smiles it's cool right?
This has nothing to do with the parent's comments. Whoop-de-do, so we toppled an unpopular dictator and left a power vacuum in his place; how does that "keep [America] safe"?
We should not be the World Police. We can't even afford to keep our own people out of poverty.
Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. And, it's not wrong to do what we can to reduce risk both for soldiers and civilians. Adding more risk wouldn't be an improvement.
Military spending is certainly tremendously wasteful, though.
> We have a volunteer army and have been engaging in "adventures" as far back as Vietnam. No one goes in not knowing what they'll be asked to do.
Vietnam prominently featured draftees, and in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for.
Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you.
>in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for.
Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists).
And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11.
> Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you.
Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices.
> Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists).
I, too, sussed this out in my teenage years but by then the Iraq war was "waning" and the writing was on the wall.
Perhaps you're just much more prescient than I, as well as the millions of young men and women who signed up to serve their country with the belief that Iraq had truly done wrong.
> And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11.
In the lead up to the invasion, our borderline state media apparatus was heavily reporting that Hussein was building WMDs. There was also much accusations of him either funding or supplying Jihadis.
>Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices.
If someone is not a citizen of the USA, and not familiar with how it's military functions, maybe they should take some time to educate themselves before debating how it should be used.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>In the lead up to the invasion, our borderline state media apparatus was heavily reporting that Hussein was building WMDs. There was also much accusations of him either funding or supplying Jihadis.
It's too bad no government has ever lied or distorted the facts to push for a war prior to Iraq... astute citizens could have learned from that experience and viewed US government proclamations through a critical lens.
> If someone is not a citizen of the USA, and not familiar with how it's military functions, maybe they should take some time to educate themselves before debating how it should be used.
I fully understood, being an American. I found it worth pointing out, out of consideration for others.
> It's too bad no government has ever lied or distorted the facts to push for a war prior to Iraq... astute citizens could have learned from that experience and viewed US government proclamations through a critical lens.
Have you considered running for office? Between your flippant rhetoric and amazing understanding of all issues geopolitical you would surely be a great fit!
So prospective military recruits should make sure that the government's position aligns with their political beliefs before enlisting? What about afterwards? Should an isolationist leave the military when we elect an interventionist president, and vice versa?
I do know what you mean, but technically that's false. Soldiers don't what new wars will start or any specifics about what they'll be ordered to do. But, once enlisted, they have to follow orders anyway.
The military is the enforcement of the leadership, so it's valid to criticize them. Just taking orders wasn't an excuse at nuremberg and it shouldn't be today, either.
At what point should the military refuse the orders of civilian leadership? A tactical level order to shoot civilians (or similar, non-cliche situation) should be disobeyed.
However, is it the military's responsible to disobey the decisions of a duly elected civilian government, such as the Iraq War resolution[0]? Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and allowing/requiring the military to go against it would have wide ranging consequences. There are definitely unique cases to be explored, but credit/blame need to be assigned to the party responsible for the decision.
When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amounts of soldiers to "keep us safe"?
If anything, the US military has made me unsafe. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Torture and drone warfare have created scores of "terrorists" - people angry that their civilian family members were killed in a war of aggression. You can trace a direct path in history from the invasion of Iraq to the rise of ISIS.
Meanwhile, money that could have been spent of social services funded these wars - leading to an economic climate so bleak that voters elected a fascist president in hopes of changing their station in life.
I'm no pacifist, but wars of aggression are not "keeping us safe" in any sense of the phrase.