Controversial subject: (Might be to rough to discuss)

[OrangeEmpire]

Listing
Listing for all wars

The death toll has reached the number 2,500 in Iraq. Not to mention the near 20,000 who are injured, and some 9,000 deemed seriously injured.

Is it enough justification to end American bloodshed and pull out of Iraq?

This is where is it going to get controversial, I am sure some of you may look at me in a different light once I mention this but I feel it is worth discussing.

From Pelosi, to Kerry, to Murtha you hear Vietnam, death tolls, blood money for oil and psychological affects the soldiers are going through.

I am in no way attempting to diminish to simply the death/causality toll but take a look back at history when this country was fighting each other during the Civil War.

The date is September 17, 1862 in the small town of Sharpsburg, Maryland. The battle Sharpsburg/Antietam claimed more than 23,000 men killed, wounded, and missing in one single day. Two weeks later, records are not definite, but sickness and like claim over 30,000 dead.

When is a death toll/causality list proper justification for ending a conflict? Is it ever a justification?

Is 2,500 merely a political tool for either side? For or against.......

I hope this is read with an open mind........................ :cross:

 

[GAVol]

I think a lot of it is a product of a 24 hour news cycle. The casualties, though numerous, are coming in numbers small enough that each and every incident can be covered in great detail and be broadcast to the general public.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I think a lot of it is a product of a 24 hour news cycle. The casualties, though numerous, are coming in numbers small enough that each and every incident can be covered in great detail and be broadcast to the general public.

Is the number 2,500 miniscule on the grand scheme on the war on terror?

As you pointed out, are the death/causality list to point of the desensitizing the public?

Do you think the general public truly cares about the welfare of the troops?

Do you think the perception of the troops is regional? Comparing South to Northwest states.........

Is the number 2,500 a big deal? Could you actually be excited about the number being "small"?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Considering the reason we went to war...ALL of the varying reasons we were told, can we honestly say this was worth it? We're told today by Cheney that we can see no attacks have occurred on our home soil since 9/11. If we're to follow that logic then Cheney better brag on Clinton because we went 8 years between WTC I and WTC II. The way I look at it is that for every 14 soldiers we sent after Saddam Hussein, we sent 1 after Osama bin Laden. Now those numbers are staggering considering who caused 9/11. Look to see who is still alive and functional and see that the Taliban is very much a major power in Afghanistan even now after being told that was taken care of a few years ago.

Also, I'll run with the logic that Saddam had WMD's and that alone was reason enough to go after him. Note during Dubya's Presidency who has expanded their WMD programs. N Korea has a viable program with actual nuclear warheads. We estimate they have 1-5 warheads and even have missiles capable of reaching the West Coast of the US. Now Iran is proceeding as well. The US has played footsie with them to get them to stop while they've had time to expand even further.

Now we went guns blazing into Iraq for these reasons but we choose the Bill Clinton diplomacy route for N Korea and Iran. This is after being told that Clinton path was weak and put us in the situation we saw right up to 9/11.

As for Iraq itself, we see more and more soldiers dying while billions of dollars get lost in the system and little shows for improvement within Iraq. They have no improvement in oil production, power is only on a few hours a day even within the fortress of Baghdad.

I hope and pray that every single soldier who not only died but served in Iraq itself actually serves for a good cause. But looking at the whole picture since 9/11, I don't see too much to be optimistic about.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Which is more costly to America, loss of lives or monetary value?

Suppossedly pipelines are back up to Turkey.

Chron

Do you think Iraq was the United States, W, flexing his muscles to the world?

Was Iraq meant for a staging area to invade Iran?

Is N. Korea under control from "back" room negotiations?
Washington Post

The way I look at it is that for every 14 soldiers we sent after Saddam Hussein, we sent 1 after Osama bin Laden.

Do you think that is the case because Iraq was a clear target and Bin Laden was not?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Pipelines are up but do go down periodically. And it's sad that the oil can get up but running water and power have yet to be fully established. Priorities?

I honestly think America needed revenge for 9/11 and Bush needed an easy victim. Iraq was pummeled by the Gulf War and weakened by the No-Fly Zones, sanctions, and the few attacks during Clinton's administration. Basically Saddam was a weak target and one the American people already hated. Most people thought Bush Sr. should have 'finished the job' to begin with. All of this together made Dubya an easy solution for the need for blood. Problem was no one figured out that AFTER Saddam there needed to be some short and long term planning as well. And that is key to many problems of this Administration. Politically they think short term for self preservation but don't think long term on policy.

 

[GAVol]

I've always thought it was a little ironic that Bush I stopped at the Iraqi border in part to avoid the political fallout of war in Iraq, and ended up getting voted out of office anyway. Bush II pretty much said screw the politics, invaded Iraq, and got re-elected.

 

[CSpindizzy]

We went inside Iraq but not too far. He backed out because that HUGE coalition his son didn't get would have collapsed had they gone any further. Note the section we went into was told that we would help them. We promised them aid in attacking, if not overthrowing Saddam at least in the Shia areas. Then we pulled out without helping which led to the massacre that we have Saddam on trial for. So indirectly we are responsible for those deaths. We caused a security issue within Iraq that Saddam dealt with.

 

[GAVol]

I respectfully disagree. Some of the charges against Saddam go back to the early 80s. IMO, we are no more responsible for his brutality then than we were in the early 90s.

 

[Lexvol]

Casualty counts are simply another way of distracting the public while congress spends all of our money. IMO it is only an issue when a draft is initiated. The armed forces are all volunteer, and can be sent anywhere on the whim of the Commander and Chief. Once you enlist, you put your life on the line. It is just a matter of fact.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Disagree on what exactly? Are you saying we had nothing to do with those 100K Shia Iraqis being killed? And even his brutality in the 80's? I mean after all we were funneling weapons and money to him left and right against Iran. I guess none of that resulted in his ability to war against his own people.

 

[volinbham]

It's difficult to ever put a number on "acceptable" casualties whether that be 1 or 100,000.

I believe those that state Iraq was just revenge, for oil, to avenge Bush Sr., etc. are missing the larger rationale behind Iraq. You may still disagree with the war but it should be evaluated based on its goals:

1) It has always been conceived as a war on terror - terrorism is more than UBL. The grand scheme is getting at the root causes and removing some of the fuel for terrorism - weak countries that serve as sanctuary (e.g. Afghanistan) and rogue nations with WMD. Ultimately the idea is that if you build 2 democracies (on either side of Iran) you set in motion a momentum to ease the long-term threat of terrorism.

Critiques of this policy rightly ask if these actions don't in and of themselves breed more terrorism (a short-term vs. long-term effect) and the intelligence was very wrong about the WMD.

2) Iraq was a completely different situation than Iran and N. Korea. UN sanctions go back to the Gulf War and were essentially terms surrender in that war. Prior to the Iraq war, the security council was unanimously behind 1441 and all on that council were convinced that WMD was there. In short, moving from 1441 to war is night and day from such actions on Iran (where the security council can't even agree there's a problem) and N. Korea where nukes are already in existence.

While there is much to find fault with in the execution of the Iraq war, some of the outcomes to date are pretty amazing as well.

The country was taken over, 3 democratic elections have been held, a constitution was created, a fully-elected government has been formed.

And the casuality numbers (while tragic) have been much much lower than pre-war predictions.

What I don't understand about the pull-out now crowd is that whether or not you agreed with the war, how can you not want to see this through. Leaving now would be a disaster.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Disagree on what exactly? Are you saying we had nothing to do with those 100K Shia Iraqis being killed? And even his brutality in the 80's? I mean after all we were funneling weapons and money to him left and right against Iran. I guess none of that resulted in his ability to war against his own people.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Then once your friend has done your work for you then you elminate him.

What were we supposed to do in the 80's? The debacle with Carter and Iran, Iraq could do our dirty work for us.

Of couse short term solutions never solved any thing..... :banghead:

 

[smokedog#3]

there was no reason to invade iraq in the first place. they were not a threat. it is a waste of 2,500 american lives for really no good reason. W still sleeps good at night, thats all that matters. :bad:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

there was no reason to invade iraq in the first place. they were not a threat. it is a waste of 2,500 american lives for really no good reason. W still sleeps good at night, thats all that matters.

Smoke, good to see you.

I honestly thought you would have more to say about the topic.

Smoke, (Q) Would you subscribe to the argument we are fighting terrorist in Iraq and not here?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Iraq is actually a much younger situation than Iran and N Korea. Keep in mind that we are still technically at war with N Korea. There is a signed cease-fire but nothing permanent with them. That is why no families of service personnel can be stationed with them in S Korea. N Korea has been under scrutiny since '53. Everything they've been allowed to do has been at the blind eye of every previous Administration to this point. Now we see they have full nuclear capability and have also shipped weapons to those same rogue states you mention volinbham.

As for the rationale for surrounding one rogue state with two democratic governments, I will say this philosophy has NEVER worked any time we've tried to do this in the past 40 years. This Cold War mentality is outdated and a failed one at that. Iraq is not a democracy. It is propped up by the barrel of a US gun. As soon as we leave (now, next year, or 5 years) it will revert to the same chaos everything else in this region reverts to. Why? Because the mentality of the people is 95% care less and 5% with guns fight for control. Whoever among the 5% with guns is more powerful, they gain control and return the region to chaos.

Look at Afghanistan now. We supposedly wiped out the Taliban or chased them all to our "ally" Pakistan, another good 'democratic' government (one that the military overthrew the democratic government mind you). In the past 6 months, the Taliban has regrown and spread like wildfire all over the nation. This is all under our noses. Supposedly Afghanistan was all mopped up. Now we're having to send in some troops to help clean up what we missed before.

We are using this rationale for installing democracies in the region which in itself is bogus. You cannot claim democracy when you have to use threats and war to install them. Democracies are formed by the people. Then when the democracies elect types we don't like we then backpedal on the notion of democracy. We weren't too keen on some fundamentalists gaining ground in Egypt, Hamas in the PA areas, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and bearded fruitcake in Iran. The people spoke there and gave us what we DIDN'T want.

What I find funny is that every time Clinton went and used the military the GOP was lock-step in demanding an exit strategy, timetable, goals, etc. Now they are in charge and promoting a war, they have NO answers for their own questions. We cannot even list ONE benchmark for when we can leave Iraq....."when Iraq can safely and securely govern itself".....well with us there that sure as heck won't happen because the Iraqis rather have us out there taking the potshots than themselves.

 

[smokedog#3]

Smoke, good to see you.

I honestly thought you would have more to say about the topic.

Smoke, (Q) Would you subscribe to the argument we are fighting terrorist in Iraq and not here?

what about pakistan, all those middle east countries have terrorist groups. we are not invading them. i know personally two people that have fought in iraq and when they got home they did not reup they said they would move to canada if they had to go back. they didn't believe in what we were fighting for over there and they said they were short on troops. this is W's war.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Ok it is just after Sept 11. You are in W's shoes, what do you do?

Obviously you do not have the information that W does, but playing arm chair quarterback with what you know now, what would you have done?

Do you still invade Afghanistan?

Do you go after Pakistan?

Do you go after N. Korea?

Do you go after rogue Russian States?

 

[volinbham]

As for the rationale for surrounding one rogue state with two democratic governments, I will say this philosophy has NEVER worked any time we've tried to do this in the past 40 years. This Cold War mentality is outdated and a failed one at that. Iraq is not a democracy. It is propped up by the barrel of a US gun. As soon as we leave (now, next year, or 5 years) it will revert to the same chaos everything else in this region reverts to. Why? Because the mentality of the people is 95% care less and 5% with guns fight for control. Whoever among the 5% with guns is more powerful, they gain control and return the region to chaos.

Look at Afghanistan now. We supposedly wiped out the Taliban or chased them all to our "ally" Pakistan, another good 'democratic' government (one that the military overthrew the democratic government mind you). In the past 6 months, the Taliban has regrown and spread like wildfire all over the nation. This is all under our noses. Supposedly Afghanistan was all mopped up. Now we're having to send in some troops to help clean up what we missed before.

We are using this rationale for installing democracies in the region which in itself is bogus. You cannot claim democracy when you have to use threats and war to install them. Democracies are formed by the people. Then when the democracies elect types we don't like we then backpedal on the notion of democracy. We weren't too keen on some fundamentalists gaining ground in Egypt, Hamas in the PA areas, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and bearded fruitcake in Iran. The people spoke there and gave us what we DIDN'T want.

Interesting but clearly overstated. On Iraq and the 95/5% split clearly an exaggeration and speculation that it will not work. If 95% didn't care, then we wouldn't have seen the high voter turn-out (just one piece of evidence).

On Afghanistan, it was never supposedly mopped up. No one said the Taliban was wiped out and permanently destroyed.

In both cases, your criticism is based on exaggerated assumptions and an incredibly short time frame. Clearly these situations are works-in-process. Show me a transition in governmental form that was completed in a few years with no fighting for the old ways.

Will it work? Who knows but your analysis completely minimizes the actions and attitudes of the people both in Iraq and Afghanistan who are giving their lives to make it work.

As for the Iranian elections - hardly democratic. Hamas in Palestinian areas fits the democratic definition but clearly it is our right as a country to support or not support any elected government.

 

[smokedog#3]

i send all the troops into afghanistan and make an example of them. W had no intentions in doing that, i've said all along he had his own private agenda.

 

[GAVol]

Show me a transition in governmental form that was completed in a few years with no fighting for the old ways.

This is the maddening part to me. You hear people comparing Iraq to Vietnam . . . Iraq is moving at light speed compared to Vietnam.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Just curious if any of you have ever read news reports of the reconstruction of Germany and Europe after World War II.

For that matter read about the reconstruction of Japan.......might sound familiar........

 

[jaybird_1981]

Everything you read and see on the news is NOT the whole story over here, you just have to trust me on this. This is my third trip so I feel I have a very good grasp on the actual situation.

 

[volinbham]

Everything you read and see on the news is NOT the whole story over here, you just have to trust me on this. This is my third trip so I feel I have a very good grasp on the actual situation.

Thanks for your service ost-20645-1119625378:


Can you elaborate? Better than portrayed or worse?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Interesting but clearly overstated. On Iraq and the 95/5% split clearly an exaggeration and speculation that it will not work. If 95% didn't care, then we wouldn't have seen the high voter turn-out (just one piece of evidence).

On Afghanistan, it was never supposedly mopped up. No one said the Taliban was wiped out and permanently destroyed.

In both cases, your criticism is based on exaggerated assumptions and an incredibly short time frame. Clearly these situations are works-in-process. Show me a transition in governmental form that was completed in a few years with no fighting for the old ways.

Will it work? Who knows but your analysis completely minimizes the actions and attitudes of the people both in Iraq and Afghanistan who are giving their lives to make it work.

As for the Iranian elections - hardly democratic. Hamas in Palestinian areas fits the democratic definition but clearly it is our right as a country to support or not support any elected government.

Overexaggerated? I need better rebuttal than that. If it ISN'T 95% or even close, why aren't people lining up to join the military to regain their country back? Why are they not turning over insurgents in large numbers? Why didn't they take up arms and immediately line up to kill off all Fedaheen right after the fall? It's not overexaggerated. Most of these nations in this region are full of status quo and complacent people. Only a small fraction actually fight and they fight other groups like them. You can't judge a voter percentage in turnout as how the people feel. Keep in mind the turnout rate was MUCH lower than was hoped for.

We have been told time and time again that the Taliban is all but defeated. We have been told they were some minor and insignificant insect floating around in a small handful of villages. Now we see them resurging right under our noses. They've actually regained many areas of the countryside once bragged on as being secured.

You say the Iranian elections were hardly democratic? Keep in mind the elections in Iraq were very similar. Numerous parties were illegal. Each political party HAD to be approved and cleared by the CPA in order to be placed on the ballot. THAT is hardly democratic.

You cannot compare this whole process to post-WWII or as if it will take years to achieve. First of all we were told people would be lining up in the streets to greet us with open arms. Plus the fact that just about every contract signed by these Bush friendly contractors said these jobs would be completed within a year such as power, water, etc. In many areas the infrastructure has collpased even further after two years of billions being spent on their upgrades.

You call my assessment overexaggerated. But I am including many aspects that you are forgetting about. I am also referring to actual agreements and statements issued by the White House. It does NOT take that long to upgrade what has been promised to achieve in 1 year. And you cannot use the excuse of security concerns because even the area of Baghdad is still far behind all of this clean-up.

The whole issue is a White House that has given out expectations that cannot be delivered. We've sunk billions into this deal and nothing to show for it. Actually many of the companies we've sunk money into have actually admitted 'losing' some of this money. Where is the retribution for this? People are in arms about a smaller amount from Katrina but what of that Iraq money?

Again I offer the point that we clearly missed the mark of going after Osama. Having 14 troops to 1 going after Saddam over Osama looks like failure of priorities. Now we're locked into draining money into Iraq with little to show for it. We have provided a weapons cache for those who never had such weapons before and we've created a traning camp that makes the ones of the Taliban look like Girl Scout Camp. We can compare to Germany and Japan but we did not do the same devastation to Iraq that was done to either, the population in Iraq was supposed to welcome us, and we've had less work to do compared to two nations that the majority of the populace was rabidly against us. Comparing the two is completely off the mark and delusional. Comparing two major industrial powers to a Third World country doesn't cut it.