Controversial subject: (Might be to rough to discuss)

[hmanvolfan]

I have the ultimate respect for our brave men and women who are fighting in the mideast theatre for our and the oppressed of the regions freedom. They are doing an honorable job but it seems to me to be a thankless one because of slanted and biased media coverage here and around the world. The sad and undeniable fact of the matter is that part of the world has been fighting and killing each other in the name of religion for centuries and altering that fact seems impossible. Maybe we should withdraw our troops (right before we turn the region into a glass covered parking lot).

 

[therealUT]

That most certainly wasn't the only other option.

I'm afraid that Iraq is going to break the U.S. like Afghanistan broke Russia.

We have lost less than 1,000 troops a year in Iraq, so we are definitely not breaking. Thanks though.

Also, people like you, would have called off Operation Overlord due to the fact that we lost around 1,000 men just training for that mission.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So losing 1000 American sons and daughters a year is trivial? Judging by that comment those 1000 a year is no big deal.

Overlord was to retake Europe from a man wiping out a continent. Overlord was for legitimate reasons and for freedom of hundreds of millions of people. Quite a difference comparing Iraq and Operation Overlord.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think the question most people ask themselves is this:

Are you willing to die so the people of Iraq can have freedom?

The answer to that for most people is no. Most people are willing to go to war and fight and die, to protect their family, home, and country but the majority of people are not willing to make that sacrifice for a people who have never been a friend to his country.

 

[therealUT]

I think the question most people ask themselves is this:

Are you willing to die so the people of Iraq can have freedom?

The answer to that for most people is no. Most people are willing to go to war and fight and die, to protect their family, home, and country but the majority of people are not willing to make that sacrifice for a people who have never been a friend to his country.

The answer for that question for me is, YES!

Most people are not willing to sacrifice for anything, period!

 

[therealUT]

So losing 1000 American sons and daughters a year is trivial? Judging by that comment those 1000 a year is no big deal.

Overlord was to retake Europe from a man wiping out a continent. Overlord was for legitimate reasons and for freedom of hundreds of millions of people. Quite a difference comparing Iraq and Operation Overlord.

Less than 1,000 a year is no big deal. I am not afraid to say so. Losing 18 in one day (Oct. 3, 1993,) was also no big deal, if the effort to end the starvation that caused 300,000 deaths had been continued by the Clinton Admin. Unfortunately, it was not.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So it is no big deal to lose a single soldier much less a 1000 a year? Glad you're not commander in chief. Every American soldier is valuable. And the mission would have been much better had we gone after the man actually behind 9/11. We got sidetracked on Saddam and now the Taliban is growing and so are every other Islamic extremist group in the region.

Let me ask you since you say the ends justifies the means....what was the 'ends' in Iraq?

 

[therealUT]

Right, I am not a Commander-in-Chief, I am only an infantry platoon leader.

Anyway, let me offer you some quotes from some people that have been in command before:

"We may lose every man. If they do the job, we've got to accept that."
Louis Lord Mountbatten, 1942, concerning the raid on the Dry Dock at St. Nazaire (out of 600 commandos sent, over 250 died in 1 day.)

By the way, the raid on St. Nazaire, is considered the greatest British raid, ever.

People die in war, CSpin. So, no it is no big deal to lose a single soldier, much less 1,000 in a year as long as the cause is noble. I believe firmly that ousting a dictator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and tortured countless others is noble. I also believe that ridding a nation of foreign fighters (from Iran, Syria, Chechnya, etc.) whose sole aim is not what is good for Iraq but what is bad for America, is also a noble goal.

 

[jaybird_1981]

The answer for that question for me is, YES!

Most people are not willing to sacrifice for anything, period!

I agree 100 percent, most people are just to selfish. My life is no better than anyone elses here.

 

[WA_Vol]

Right, I am not a Commander-in-Chief, I am only an infantry platoon leader.
I believe firmly that ousting a dictator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and tortured countless others is noble. I also believe that ridding a nation of foreign fighters (from Iran, Syria, Chechnya, etc.) whose sole aim is not what is good for Iraq but what is bad for America, is also a noble goal.

Based on that alone, that would get USA into about 50 countries worldwide. We dont have the financial resources in this country to constantly be at war, and solve the rest of the worlds problems.

 

[WA_Vol]

I agree 100 percent, most people are just to selfish. My life is no better than anyone elses here.

Why do have to go over there and do the job for the iraqi people???? why couldnt they do it they are the ones who live there. if they have never had the backbone to do it then why is it our govt's responsibilty? the majority of the world doesnt think its their responsiblity they are not there either.

 

[therealUT]

It wasn't France's responsibility to see that we had our independence either, yet, their help was crucial to our success in the Revolution. Ultimately, that help led to the demise of the French Monarchy, I would still argue that it was a noble and worthy cause.

Also, who really cares about what the rest of the world thinks? I for one do not.

With great power comes great responsibility. We are the only nation in the world that has the power and resources to offer meaningful help to peoples throughout the world. We are financially committed to the aiding over 50 countries worldwide (whether that aid comes through food or military relief.) That is what we do. We are by far the most gracious nation that has existent in all of history, and I am pretty proud of that fact.

 

[WA_Vol]

It wasn't France's responsibility to see that we had our independence either, yet, their help was crucial to our success in the Revolution. Ultimately, that help led to the demise of the French Monarchy, I would still argue that it was a noble and worthy cause.

Also, who really cares about what the rest of the world thinks? I for one do not.

With great power comes great responsibility. We are the only nation in the world that has the power and resources to offer meaningful help to peoples throughout the world. We are financially committed to the aiding over 50 countries worldwide (whether that aid comes through food or military relief.) That is what we do. We are by far the most gracious nation that has existent in all of history, and I am pretty proud of that fact.

What about the obligation to our children and their children's children to not place upon them billions upon billions of debt to invade a country who has never been an alley or a friend to this country?

 

[WA_Vol]

It wasn't France's responsibility to see that we had our independence either, yet, their help was crucial to our success in the Revolution. Ultimately, that help led to the demise of the French Monarchy, I would still argue that it was a noble and worthy cause.

Patriots were organized and fighting the revolution for a year before France got involved. The French got involved when they felt the patriotscould win.

Why didnt we wait until the Iraqi people staged a revolution instead making it our responsibility to do it for them?

And why Iraq? There's probably 50 countries in the world and the entire continent of Africa to invade if thats our obligation to stop a brutal dictators rule.

 

[dan4vols]

Patriots were organized and fighting the revolution for a year before France got involved. The French got involved when they felt the patriotscould win.

Why didnt we wait until the Iraqi people staged a revolution instead making it our responsibility to do it for them?

And why Iraq? There's probably 50 countries in the world and the entire continent of Africa to invade if thats our obligation to stop a brutal dictators rule.

Yeah but those other 50 countries dont have huge oil reserves and they didnt mouth off at paw I wonder if GWB knew it was my pet theory that his dad married his babysitter, would Oklahoma be invaded? The woman had snow white hair back when he was vice president, looked more like his mom than his wife.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I believe firmly that ousting a dictator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and tortured countless others is noble. I also believe that ridding a nation of foreign fighters (from Iran, Syria, Chechnya, etc.) whose sole aim is not what is good for Iraq but what is bad for America, is also a noble goal.

So why aren't we being noble to a 50 year old war oppressed people in North Korea? Syria? Iran? 2/3 of Africa? 2/3 of Latin America? I think by your logic, we're being far from noble for only saving a small country like Iraq and leaving the other 99% of the oppressed people of the world suffer for many more years. Why do we save one and not all? Or even a handful more? And I thought we were first in there for WMD's. The saving the people of Iraq was not used until after we went in and the search for WMD's was flopping. It's convenient after the fact to use the whole nobility line. And hundreds of thousands? Where did you get that number? What of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese since Mao took over in China? I think this whole world police force line is one certain people conveniently drag out when the original intent completely bombs.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It wasn't France's responsibility to see that we had our independence either, yet, their help was crucial to our success in the Revolution. Ultimately, that help led to the demise of the French Monarchy, I would still argue that it was a noble and worthy cause.

It was a convenient factor for them. NOT a noble cause. They did jump in when it appeared the tide was turning. They saw the tide turning and less odds it would harm them politically and militarily. Plus a chance to dig at their chief rival offered a great bonus. The move of supporting the colonists also help put a check on British expansion on areas French held claim to. It was self-serving, NOT noble.