My thoughts on the war...

[L1]

Is 1000 a significant number? Hell yea it is. So is 3000 people, on 9/11. So would another 300 on a jetliner, and so would another 10K or many, many more if God forbid somebody get a nuke or other bombs here.

Perhaps I'm naive for having faith in some of our government leaders, but I have to believe that the administration just may know something we don't. Sure, this war has been a very unfortunate and tragic period for all parties involved. But this is far from a Bush phenomenon, far from a new phenomenon. Virtually all US administrations have taken "unprovoked" preemptive swipes at other countries for a variety of reasons. It's easy to criticize, but if you have a gun and an attacker has a gun, are you going to wait for him to shoot you first? It would not be wise.

I feel bad for all those that died on 9/11 and fully support going after the perpetrators of the act. However, I don't think that there was every any good reason to go to war w/ Iraq since they had absolutely nothing to do w/ 9/11 or terrorism. They never threatened the US w/ military force after the Gulf War. Personally, the US gov't was nothing more than a bully, picking on the easiest target to get attention. We could have gone after North Korea or Iran but that would mean picking on someone that is capable of equal retaliation.

[nekko]

you do know how cozy the bushies are with the saudi royal government, right?

and most 911 hijackers are saudi.

Right, but how much leverage could we exert over the Saudis when we were reliant upon them to contain Iraq? There's credibility to the idea that we could've contained Iraq and not invaded but that idea is premised on us maintaining our forces in Saudi Arabia, forces which specifically drove (among other things) Bin Laden towards his anti-Americanism and which pushed many Saudis in a similar direction. So if you think we should've pushed the Saudis harder you either have to eliminate the Iraqi threat first or figure a way to contain Iraq at the same time we eliminate our need for our primary basing facility.

If the Iraqis had wanted freedom from Saddam, then they would have pursued it regardless of the human cost of Iraqi life, and well, I'm sure after they initiated it, Saddam would have struck back with such brutal force that the world, including the Middle Eastern community, would not have been able to consciously sit by and watch innocent people being slaughtered.   

I think you're being genuine but don't you think this is a bit naive? Saddam ruthlessly crushed the rebellions against him immediately post Gulf War and there wasn't a rush of countries stopping him. The countries of the Middle East or anywhere else certainly didn't make an effort to stop Saddam when he was crushing Kurdish resistance with chemical weapons. You speak as though he wasn't using brutal force to maintain power already. As if it would be something he would have to resort to once people started to rebel. Kidnappings, torture and executions were common and to be honest it only differed from many other Middle East countries in its efficiency. What possible evidence is there that anyone would've done anything if Saddam somehow managed to be even more ruthless? People aren't ripping over themselves to stop genocide in the Sudan and they weren't to stop genocide in Rwanda. 

They never threatened the US w/ military force after the Gulf War. Personally, the US gov't was nothing more than a bully, picking on the easiest target to get attention. We could have gone after North Korea or Iran but that would mean picking on someone that is capable of equal retaliation.

They never threatened the US w/military force after the Gulf War? Well in a sense but even prior to the second war with Iraq we were involved in a low level state of conflict. Clinton authorized many bombings in Iraq throughout his two terms and we had been enforcing a no-fly zone for about a decade. We didn't have all those military forces in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. because Iraq wasn't a threat. In addition we were enforcing sanctions on Iraq which various groups have argued was killing thousands of innocent Iraqis. Also saying we could've gone after North Korea or Iran doesn't make sense. At some point you have to be practical. This seems to be an argument that since you can't do good everywhere you shouldn't do it at all. Sure we could've attacked North Korea but that had the very real possibility of going nuclear. The whole reason to attack Iraq now as opposed to later was so we wouldn't be in the same position we're in now with N. Korea. As for Iran if you think the reasons for attacking Iraq are slim then the rationale for attacking Iran would be non-existent in addition to just the basic practical problems of invading a country like Iran which unlike Iraq actually does have some democratic elements and at least show signs of being able to reform peacefully.

Many of the soldiers we lost in Vietnam were draftees, forced into a senseless war with inadequate training and lesser weapons than we have now.  Each of the 1,000 soldiers we have lost are professional soldiers.  They are better trained, and better equipped.  I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that losing 1000 soldiers now is losing almost 5,000 Vietnam draftees, in terms of fighting effectiveness.

But how is this an appropriate measure from a moral point of view? 1 person losing their life who was forced into service and given poor training seems a lot more unfair than someone who lost their life performing a duty for which they volunteered for and were well trained in. Now if you're arguing in general practical terms the loss is like 5,000 Vietnam draftees then wouldn't we still have to sustain losses like this for 10 years to be at the Vietnam level?

How are we safer, when the number of nuclear weapons pointed at us has only gone up since we invaded Iraq?

Has it gone up since then? Who are new folks pointing nuclear weapons at us?

Israel and South Korea, both nations with enemies right next to them, and previously victims of terrorist attacks, have kept their airliners safe from terrorism. 

South Korea hasn't really been attacked by Islamic/religous terrorists though have they? Haven't the attacks they have sustained been connected with N. Korea? As to Israel, are you recommending the extensive profiling that the Israelis practice? Are we just counting the Israeli nat'l airline? I mean I'm sure the US could cut down the chance of terrorism too just by limiting the number of airlines allowed to fly and the airports which they use to the same number that S. Korea and Israel has. Also wouldn't it essentially just take one attack to put them on par with the US which you don't find secure?

What about the 10s of 1000 Iraqis that have been lost?  Each was a life.  Each had a mother, a father, a face and a soul.  They are all lost.  And I fail to understand, why.  WHY?

You seem to care about the Iraqis now but were their lives unworthy when they were being killed in far larger numbers throughout Saddam Hussein's rule? Would it be okay if we didn't invade and Saddam continued his regime in which thousands of Iraqis died so long as the US just stood by? What about the sanctions? They were arguably killing thousands, particularly children but that was our primary means of containment. Are we judging war v. what had been the status quo?

[dgatl]

If the Iraqis had wanted freedom from Saddam, then they would have pursued it regardless of the human cost of Iraqi life, and well, I'm sure after they initiated it, Saddam would have struck back with such brutal force that the world, including the Middle Eastern community, would not have been able to consciously sit by and watch innocent people being slaughtered.   

I think you're being genuine but don't you think this is a bit naive? Saddam ruthlessly crushed the rebellions against him immediately post Gulf War and there wasn't a rush of countries stopping him. The countries of the Middle East or anywhere else certainly didn't make an effort to stop Saddam when he was crushing Kurdish resistance with chemical weapons. You speak as though he wasn't using brutal force to maintain power already. As if it would be something he would have to resort to once people started to rebel. Kidnappings, torture and executions were common and to be honest it only differed from many other Middle East countries in its efficiency. What possible evidence is there that anyone would've done anything if Saddam somehow managed to be even more ruthless? People aren't ripping over themselves to stop genocide in the Sudan and they weren't to stop genocide in Rwanda. 

You have good points.  But I still think that it was up to the Iraqi people to initiate the toppling of the regime - at whatever cost of human life.  And worldwide consensus is that Rwanda was the biggest tragedy of recent times.  That is why they are trying (but still failing) to fix the situation in Darfur.

[thechoson]

But how is this an appropriate measure from a moral point of view? 1 person losing their life who was forced into service and given poor training seems a lot more unfair than someone who lost their life performing a duty for which they volunteered for and were well trained in. Now if you're arguing in general practical terms the loss is like 5,000 Vietnam draftees then wouldn't we still have to sustain losses like this for 10 years to be at the Vietnam level?

I did not say this was moral.  I said from a tactical standpoint, it makes sense.  People love to compare this war to Vietnam and say, heck it's not so bad, considering we've only lost 1000.  However, I made the point of comparing numbers in this fashion to show that from a military tactical standpoint, this may have some validity.  And yes, we have to sustain losses for 10 years to be at Vietnam levels.  Can you guarantee we won't be there ten years fighing a guerilla war?

Has it gone up since then? Who are new folks pointing nuclear weapons at us?

There are reports that North Korea has developed nukes.  Iran is developing nukes.  The number sure hasn't gone down, has it?  But wasn't that Bush's justification?  To make that number go down?  Well, why hasn't it?  Cause Saddam didn't have any.

South Korea hasn't really been attacked by Islamic/religous terrorists though have they? Haven't the attacks they have sustained been connected with N. Korea? As to Israel, are you recommending the extensive profiling that the Israelis practice? Are we just counting the Israeli nat'l airline? I mean I'm sure the US could cut down the chance of terrorism too just by limiting the number of airlines allowed to fly and the airports which they use to the same number that S. Korea and Israel has. Also wouldn't it essentially just take one attack to put them on par with the US which you don't find secure?

What does Islamic terrorism have to do with it?  North Korea was extremely effective in their own brand of state sponsored terrorism, kidnapping citizens out of their homes, and blowing up an airliner back in the 70s.  The U.S. does not have to take such drastic measures as the ROK and Israel have done.  But we are also a richer nation with much better technology.  Yet we can't come up with a solution to guard our own turf without invading sovereign nations?

You seem to care about the Iraqis now but were their lives unworthy when they were being killed in far larger numbers throughout Saddam Hussein's rule? Would it be okay if we didn't invade and Saddam continued his regime in which thousands of Iraqis died so long as the US just stood by? What about the sanctions? They were arguably killing thousands, particularly children but that was our primary means of containment. Are we judging war v. what had been the status quo?

Yes, and how is it ok when thousands of Iraqis are still dying, and will continue to die?  We in effect removed a dictator that was killing Iraqis with an occupying force that is killing Iraqis.  What kind of liberation is this?  And again, you assume the killing has stopped.  Iraqi civilians are dying on a daily basis.

[john6675]

Yes, and how is it ok when thousands of Iraqis are still dying, and will continue to die?  We in effect removed a dictator that was killing Iraqis with an occupying force that is killing Iraqis.  What kind of liberation is this?  And again, you assume the killing has stopped.  Iraqi civilians are dying on a daily basis.

The fact that you can even begin to equate what our soldiers are doing over there with the atrocities of Saddam Hussein sickens me...  I refuse to believe that you can't see the difference.

[M2]

Yes, and how is it ok when thousands of Iraqis are still dying, and will continue to die?  We in effect removed a dictator that was killing Iraqis with an occupying force that is killing Iraqis.  What kind of liberation is this?  And again, you assume the killing has stopped.  Iraqi civilians are dying on a daily basis.

The fact that you can even begin to equate what our soldiers are doing over there with the atrocities of Saddam Hussein sickens me...  I refuse to believe that you can't see the difference.

I know you weren't speaking to me...
but, is there really a difference?

Please tell me what it is.

[nekko]

I did not say this was moral.  I said from a tactical standpoint, it makes sense.  People love to compare this war to Vietnam and say, heck it's not so bad, considering we've only lost 1000.  However, I made the point of comparing numbers in this fashion to show that from a military tactical standpoint, this may have some validity.  And yes, we have to sustain losses for 10 years to be at Vietnam levels.  Can you guarantee we won't be there ten years fighing a guerilla war?

From a tactical point of view it still isn't really comparable is it considering that although we are much more advanced right now I think you either overestimate the quality of current troops or underestimate the quality of troops of the Vietnam era since do you really think 1 soldier is worth about 5 draftees? It's not like they're using powered armor or anything. Can't guarantee we wont be there ten years from now fighting a guerilla war but if we're going to extend the argument that way then what's the point comparing casualties at all since who knows what's going to happen?

There are reports that North Korea has developed nukes.  Iran is developing nukes.  The number sure hasn't gone down, has it?  But wasn't that Bush's justification?  To make that number go down?  Well, why hasn't it?  Cause Saddam didn't have any.

That's not really an appropriate analysis though. If you cut pollution by 50% pollution will still increase but that fact wouldn't make the policy bad or a failure would it? Also N. Korea has been in that process for well over a decade so how is that related? Also with Iran we're actually taking a multilateral diplomatic approach which in some ways we have a lot more leverage doing since the invasion of Iraq so how is that somehow a poor reflection of the Iraq policy?

What does Islamic terrorism have to do with it?  North Korea was extremely effective in their own brand of state sponsored terrorism, kidnapping citizens out of their homes, and blowing up an airliner back in the 70s.  The U.S. does not have to take such drastic measures as the ROK and Israel have done.  But we are also a richer nation with much better technology.  Yet we can't come up with a solution to guard our own turf without invading sovereign nations?

It has plenty to do it with it because N. Korean objectives wasn't simply kill South Koreans. It was to achieve specific political goals which could actually be negotiated. Why would the US not have to take such drastic measures to get an equivalent amount of security? We're much bigger (thus more vulnerable) have more access points, more freedom of movement, etc. Sure we have better technology but is that really an issue? It's not like we didn't have anti-box cutter technology pre-9/11.

Yes, and how is it ok when thousands of Iraqis are still dying, and will continue to die?  We in effect removed a dictator that was killing Iraqis with an occupying force that is killing Iraqis.  What kind of liberation is this?  And again, you assume the killing has stopped.  Iraqi civilians are dying on a daily basis.

Yes plenty of Iraqis are dying today. They were dying before the war as well (due to the regime and sanctions). Which do you think offered the best prospect of success for the Iraqi people? Do you think Saddam Hussein was going to decide that he wanted to stop being ruthless? It's not a pretty situation either way but if you're going to have people die I would think most would prefer that path that at least had the prospect of a better future.

You have good points.  But I still think that it was up to the Iraqi people to initiate the toppling of the regime - at whatever cost of human life.  And worldwide consensus is that Rwanda was the biggest tragedy of recent times.  That is why they are trying (but still failing) to fix the situation in Darfur.

But how was it ever up to the Iraqi people? It's not like they decided to have Saddam Hussein. If someone comes into your house, threatens to kill you and take all of your belongings, did you make the decision to let that happen? Is that how we're defining their ability to choose? Yes the worldwide consensus is that Rwanda is a tragedy. Did anyone stop it? Did anyone try? Is there any reason to believe that this wouldn't be the case elsewhere? They're trying to fix the situation if Darfur to the extent that they don't actually have to make any sacrifices. If this is the international effort you would be counting on to stop extreme levels of brutality used in a crackdown I have to question what the real value of that effort is.

[frat]

I'll tell you what the difference is. Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds for the sole purpose of? Oh that's right there is no explanation for such barbaric activities other than pure evil. The Bush administration on the other hand has taken on the monumental task of creating a Democracy in Iraq!! A functioning democracy where people do not live in fear of being dumped into mass graves! Of course such a goal will not be recognized over the course of a few months, years, or even decades. However, the realization of such an accomplishment would change the world forever!! The people of Iraq would be liberated, thus influencing other countries in the Middle East to follow similar reforms. The impact of such changes on the lives of millions of currently oppressed people in the Middle East is obvious. There is, however, more to the story. Peace and reform in the Middle East would strike at the very heart of Islamic Fundamentalists. Having friendly governments in the Middle East who preach equality, liberty, and democracy, would be a colossal aid in the fight against terror, if not completely abolishing fundamentalists in that region. Is it a pipe dream? Maybe, but what is the alternative? Somebody better call Karl Rove and have him get me a job ASAP!! LOL. On a more serious note, by no means am I attempting to put down others or their opinions. I think that debate on the subject is healthy; I really can't stand watching political "experts" insult one another when we are dealing with a major issue that could very well affect the rest of our lives!!    

[M2]

Was that really Bush's goal?
Does he really care about a "stable democratic" Iraq?

[dgatl]

Bush's goal was to divert attention from his failure to catch osama bin laden

and his goal was directly related to oil