A Third of Vets Think Iraq and Afghan Wars Are a Waste: Are They?
SodaHead News
2011/10/06 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
415 votes
|
|
82% | |||
|
90 votes
|
|
18% | |||
According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, one third (33 percent) of post-9/11 veterans believe the wars being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq were not worth fighting, compared to 45 percent of the general public who felt the same way. Conversely, 34 percent of post-9/11 vets think both wars were worth it, compared to just 28 percent of the general public.
The poll asked 1,853 veterans and 2,003 civilians what they thought about various aspects of the war and U.S. military involvement overseas. Only 712 of the veterans polled served in the military after 9/11, and 336 of those served in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Questions ranged from how the war affected their personal life to their religious and political affiliations.
It also asked whether military veterans thought the general public understands what's even going on over there. An overwhelming 84 percent of post-9/11 vets don't think the public understands the problems military personnel face, however 71 percent of civilians agreed.
According to The Associated Press, the study emphasizes how difficult it will be for Obama and Congress to hold on to public support as they keep troops deployed overseas, where more than 6,000 troops have died (about 4,500 in Iraq and 1,700 in Afghanstan) and more than $1 trillion have been spent.
This is especially vital as the government tries to balance the deficit. Military spending makes up about 20 percent of the U.S. budget.
The poll asked 1,853 veterans and 2,003 civilians what they thought about various aspects of the war and U.S. military involvement overseas. Only 712 of the veterans polled served in the military after 9/11, and 336 of those served in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Questions ranged from how the war affected their personal life to their religious and political affiliations.
It also asked whether military veterans thought the general public understands what's even going on over there. An overwhelming 84 percent of post-9/11 vets don't think the public understands the problems military personnel face, however 71 percent of civilians agreed.
According to The Associated Press, the study emphasizes how difficult it will be for Obama and Congress to hold on to public support as they keep troops deployed overseas, where more than 6,000 troops have died (about 4,500 in Iraq and 1,700 in Afghanstan) and more than $1 trillion have been spent.
This is especially vital as the government tries to balance the deficit. Military spending makes up about 20 percent of the U.S. budget.
Top Opinion
-
DDogbreath 2011/10/07 15:43:41
But if a war is deemed necessary, there should be a definite goal, a point where anyone observing can say you've achieved your objective. At that point the war is over and the troops return home.
Vietnam was unpopular because there was no easily identifiable goal, the US frittered away troops year after year with no perceptible results. The first Gulf War was just the opposite, the coalition forces went in, accomplished their objectives, and left. (And is it not interesting that many of the commanders in the Gulf War had been foot soldiers in Vietnam.)
In Iraq, where is our goal? At what point can we say the troops have accomplished what they were sent to do? It is an ongoing conflict with no set objectives, therein lies its unpopularity.
Not only were they a waste, but a HUGE, shameful waste.
The entire war on terror is based on lies, and was specifically designed to allow the government to continue these "wars" forever. Without a declared enemy, there can be no victory. And when they can label anyone under the sun (even US citizens) "terrorists", they have justification to attack anyone, anywhere, at any time. It's a sick game they are playing, and the costs in lives alone is way too high.
All of these wars are nothing more than these elite powers using the US military to build their empire. IT's called the New World Order, and it is deadly real.
All it means to us is that we can count on the US NEVER being at peace around the globe again in our lifetime. And as long as the people of America continue allowing it (because they don't understand the truth) we're all culpable as Americans.
the Iraq war was a waste from day one.
I don't know enough about the Afghanistan situation to have an opinion on it BUT - - - given the mess that is developing in re Iran, at the moment, we're going to have to pull out of there fast in any case.
when someone with ties to the Iranian government attempts to get someone from a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US. when he arranges to have the assassination committed on American soil. when that person says, "Do it in a restaurant if you need to and, if hundreds of Americans are killed in the process, f*** em."
well, what can I say? we're on a collision course with Iran.
so, I'm just curious: HOW MANY WARS CAN WE SUPPORT?
The key is whether or not you actually believe the stories we're being told about Iran. I don't believe any of them, because I have seen the real reason why our government wants to go to war with them. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, I can tell you that.
To answer your question... We cannot support the wars we're already in. Adding another one will ensure the collapse of America. We have the history of Rome to look at as a guide, but nobody is looking. This empire will collapse in the same way.
still - will what I believe about whether the story is true or not make one whit of difference in whether or not we go to war with Iran?
my fear is that we WILL go to war with them - whether we have reason to or not.
I'm just praying that the pull-out from Iraq isn't in preparation for the next act.
The one thing I know is that the rhetoric and saber rattling we've been engaging in against Iran is completely bogus. Our own intelligence community concluded in 2007 that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. They published this in the National Intelligence Estimate that year (2007), which was stonewalled by the Bush White House for almost a year because it went against everything they had been telling the people of the US about Iran and their nuclear ambitions. And with the release of that report, what did the US government do? They INCREASED sanctions on Iran, the exact OPPOSITE of what should have been done. Why? Because the American people (for the most part) are ignorant enough to simply forget the NIE report (if they even knew about it in the first place), and are trusting enough to believe whatever the government tells them. And it proved itself to be an effective action, as most Americans will tell you that we need to be on Iran's case about the nuke issue, even though it d...
The one thing I know is that the rhetoric and saber rattling we've been engaging in against Iran is completely bogus. Our own intelligence community concluded in 2007 that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. They published this in the National Intelligence Estimate that year (2007), which was stonewalled by the Bush White House for almost a year because it went against everything they had been telling the people of the US about Iran and their nuclear ambitions. And with the release of that report, what did the US government do? They INCREASED sanctions on Iran, the exact OPPOSITE of what should have been done. Why? Because the American people (for the most part) are ignorant enough to simply forget the NIE report (if they even knew about it in the first place), and are trusting enough to believe whatever the government tells them. And it proved itself to be an effective action, as most Americans will tell you that we need to be on Iran's case about the nuke issue, even though it doesn't exist.
The wrost part about this is that the people of Iran don't necessarily hate Americans. A guy named Rick Steves is producing a documentary about his recent trip to Iran where he found that most Iranians were extremely friendly to him, stating that they don't hate Americans, but hate our government (understandably, in my opinion). And many of these people will be the innocent victims of US/Israeli bombs in any conflict. And every innocent Iranian death will be for absolutely nothing.
I fear, as you do twocrows, that it is inevitable that we will be at war with Iran. And knowing that the real reason has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, it will be yet another scar on the American flag. Our government is building an Empire at the behest of the world's elite, and they are using fear to get the public to accept their actions. It's sickening to me.
Had the government really wanted Osama, they would have provided the evidence (they claimed to have) that he was resonsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban leaders said very clearly in a televised press conference that if the Us could provide this evidence, they would apprehend Bin Laden and turn him over to an international court for trial. The US government arrogantly said "Just give him to us, we know he's guilty". So, instead of providing the evidence (the same evidence Condoleeza Rice told the American people they would present, and never did) they undertook a military action that they KNEW would result in the deaths of many US soldiers, Afghani civilians, and cost billions of dollars. Is there ANY logic in their actions?
The truth is that there were many reasons the US government wanted to control Afghanistan, and not a single one of them had anything to do with Bin Laden. The 3 primary reasons were these:
1) Pure and simple... CONTROL. For the US empire to achieve their goals, they need to control every country on the planet. The ones they cannot enslave in debt, they destroy by mil...
Had the government really wanted Osama, they would have provided the evidence (they claimed to have) that he was resonsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban leaders said very clearly in a televised press conference that if the Us could provide this evidence, they would apprehend Bin Laden and turn him over to an international court for trial. The US government arrogantly said "Just give him to us, we know he's guilty". So, instead of providing the evidence (the same evidence Condoleeza Rice told the American people they would present, and never did) they undertook a military action that they KNEW would result in the deaths of many US soldiers, Afghani civilians, and cost billions of dollars. Is there ANY logic in their actions?
The truth is that there were many reasons the US government wanted to control Afghanistan, and not a single one of them had anything to do with Bin Laden. The 3 primary reasons were these:
1) Pure and simple... CONTROL. For the US empire to achieve their goals, they need to control every country on the planet. The ones they cannot enslave in debt, they destroy by military force.
2) Oil pipelines: A key pipeline was planned that would deliver oil to key strategic locations which required crossing Afghanistan. The Taliban leaders but the stop to it and the US government drew up the plans to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11/2001.
3) Opium: The Taliban leaders had begun destroying the Opium crops BEFORE 9/11. Without getting into all the details, let's just note that BILLIONS of dollars in drug money are laundered through the US financial markets. Killing the Opium meant stopping this flow of money. The effect on the markets would have been catastrophic, so it was necessary toensure those crops remained growing. That's why the Opium fields were replanted across the country AFTER the US took over control. And they blamed the Taliban for it.
It's really sad when you see the evidence of the real reasons our government has sacrificed countless human lives in these wars. It's certainly not something that makes you proud of your government.
Plus many billionaires have indeed made more billions off the war, furthering our economy because they higher more immigrant servants than anyone else.
Please tell me that your comment above is sarcastic or a joke?
money off the Wars as War is always big Business!
Afghanistan is hell on earth just being honest .
Besides, with all due respect to our soldiers, just because they can carry a gun, follow orders and exhibit uncommon bravery in the face of possible death, doesn't make them expert political science analysts.
I don't know!