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.
you do know how cozy the bushies are with the saudi royal government, right?and most 911 hijackers are saudi.
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.
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.
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 donít think itís a stretch to say that losing 1000 soldiers now is losing almost 5,000 Vietnam draftees, in terms of fighting effectiveness.
How are we safer, when the number of nuclear weapons pointed at us has only gone up since we invaded Iraq?
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.
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?
QuoteIf 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.
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.
QuoteYes, 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 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?
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.
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 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.