How "easy" do you want this war to be?

[jacksen9]

While their lives ought not be discarded lightly, such sacrifice is one cost of protecting our country’s widely defined “interests.”

I agree, the lives lost ought not be discarded lightly. The good news is that they certainly will not be discarded lightly.

Another step in the right direction would be to stop wishing for their deaths.

Each individual soldier and sailor would be safe if the US had not chosen to invade Iraq.

Not true. It is not** that** uncommon to hear of members of the military dying during some sort of training mission that has gone bad. What they do is dangerous, war or no war.

[owlofcreamcheese]

basicly this thread boils down to “I hate bush so much I hope alot of people die so I can be right”

[GreenMan]

I don’t really like Bush but the people fighting in Iraq did not make the policy. I would like to see them all come back healthy and happy. I had some family fight in past conflicts and I would sure have quite a bone to pick if anyone wished them harm in my earshot.

[McDuff]

*Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese *
**basicly this thread boils down to “I hate bush so much I hope alot of people die so I can be right” **

No, it doesn’t.

It boils down to “I don’t want people to die, but I’m worried about the possible consequences of an easy victory.” It’s not the victory that would upset people, it’s what might follow.

Of course, we’re not over enamoured with the possibility of a defeat, either.

[Dinsdale]

owl, you are mistaken.

In this thread, I am bewailing a particular foreign policy choice by this administration. I would be as opposed to this action were if brought by any administration, as I fear the implications for the future international community.

I have no particular opinion of Bush as a person. I strongly disfavor him as President of the US for various reasons. But this thread was in no way personally aimed at him.

You do no one any favors by intentionally or ignorantly mischaracterizing my statements.

[Debaser]

I would like to join the chorus of ** ElJeffe**, owl and the others condemning the posters in this thread who are wishing for higher coalition casualties.

For people to be wishing for the war to go badly is fucking sick.

For any reason. Bush bashing or whatever sick crap you have come up with to justify it.

If any of you in this thread wishing for the war to go badly are Americans, British, or Australians then you are traitors to your country. In your hearts, if not in actual actions.

[Dinsdale]

Get a little warm wrapping yourself in the flag like that Debaser?

In no way am I a “traitor” for continuing to voice my opposition to this war simply because we have begun shooting. I can love my country, while still wanting it to stay out of unnecessary wars that create, rather than resolve, dangers for ourselves and our troops.

I believe the poverty of your views is borne out by your readiness to resort to personal insults.

[gobear]

You replied to Debaser

In no way am I a “traitor” for continuing to voice my opposition to this war simply because we have begun shooting. I can love my country, while still wanting it to stay out of unnecessary wars that create, rather than resolve, dangers for ourselves and our troops.

But Debaser did not call you a traitor for merely voicong opposition to the war; lots of folks here have done that and nobody called them traitors.

Here’s what Debaser said:

If any of you in this thread wishing for the war to go badly are Americans, British, or Australians then you are traitors to your country. In your hearts, if not in actual actions.

because in your OP you said

I feel it is almost desirable that we incur some sizeable casualties - in order for the public to be forced to acknowledge the enormity of this undertaking, and to prevent the administration that initiated it from deflecting justified criticism in the popular glow following a fast, relatively painless victory.

Wishing for American soldiers to die in order to point out the folly of war is evil. It is one thing to deplore Bush’s policies, but to hope for the deaths of people here know and love in order to score points in a debate is utterly disgusting.

[Shodan]

Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan I have felt that there might, from a certain point of view, be some value in suffering substantial casualties in part of the war against terrorism.

Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. bin Laden.

owlofcreamcheese is correct in his characterization of the logic involved here. As well as his description of it as “sick”.

There are those who oppose the war on principle, but hope for its speedy end with minimal loss of life. Those I can respect.

There are others who oppose the war on principle, and wish for the sufferings and death of those involved. Those I do not respect.

For those who have posted to that effect, I do not wish for your own suffering or death. What I wish is that, sometime soon, you will share with the rest of us the loathing and contempt we feel for an attitude that would support Saddam Hussein in his desire to torture and kill as many of our young servicemen and women as he can.

This isn’t the Pit, is it? Pity.

Signed,
Shodan

[TVAA]

I wouldn’t prefer the suffering and death of those involved in the war.

But if this war ends quickly and easily, I fear it will be repeated; this would result in more total suffering and death than there would be otherwise.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

As vehemently as I disagree with Dinsdale et al, I think I see where they’re coming from: in their eyes, more deaths now equal fewer deaths later, and they believe that this bloody calculus is necessary. Am I right? That’s a view I can respect, although I think it represents a failure of imagination.

Even in our little message-board fantasies, we ought to be looking to third ways out, ways that involve minimizing deaths now and later.

I also think it is inappropriate for anyone whose life is not at risk to be hoping for increased casualties.

Daniel

[Dinsdale]

I truly wish I could identify an alternative to American casualties that would be likely to result in widespread condemnation of this military action, and prevent its recurrence.

[gobear]

I truly wish I could identify an alternative to American casualties that would be likely to result in widespread condemnation of this military action, and prevent its recurrence.

There already is widespread condemnation of this military action, so you don’t need to cheer on the deaths of soldiers to accomplish that goal.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Dinsdale, I’ll also point out that your position is easily read as cheering on the deaths of soldiers, even if that’s not how you intend it; while your wishes will have no material effect on the number of soldiers that die, they might help folks who want to discredit the antiwar movement. In this respect inasmuch as the antiwar movement might help discourage future wars, your wishes will have the opposite effect of what you intend.

Daniel

[Dinsdale]

I fear you may be stating my thoughts more clearly than I am, Daniel.

I would appreciate it if anyone could point to anything I posted that suggests that I am happy at these thoughts, or that I reached them lightly. To the contrary. I am very torn by the thought of Americans - and Iraqis - dying in this war. And I resent that our current administration has manipulated events such that I am forced to reach conclusions I find so distasteful.

Please, somebody - present me a viable third option.

Should I hope, instead, for the onslaught to stall, with the result that winning this war simply costs hugely more ? Heck, we can afford that by simply cutting taxes more, no? This is one of the curses of being as rich as we are. We can spend outlandish amounts of , while others have nothing to spend but their blood.

And, given the casualty rate of friendly fire so far, an occupying/beseiging force will not be without casualties.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, little short of American casualties seems to have an effect on the viewing public and their reps. Huge amounts of $ spent now and over the coming decades and countless Iraqi deaths - we can handle.

Heck, where is the outrage over our shooting down of a British jet? And where is the condemnation of the American pilots who bombed and killed Canadians in Afghanistan? Oops! Our bad.

Lives of non-Americans simply aren’t that important.

[Latro]

OK, we already know that this war is but the first in a long list of wars to come. It is the New Order. Attack and control anyone that might eventually at some point in time become a threat. The New American Century, right?
People are scared shitless. This stuff is real, a century of war.

The OP poses that high casualties now might make people weary of starting the next and the next and the next. This might indeed have the desired effect, however sick it is to wish for a high death toll (espescially from your own countrymen).

What other way do you people see to prevent this nightmare from unfolding?

[Dinsdale]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**There already is widespread condemnation of this military action, so you don’t need to cheer on the deaths of soldiers to accomplish that goal. **

And how effective do you think that widespread condemnation will be at preventing recurrence/spread of this unilateral militaristic approach to foreign policy in the face of a rapid relatively bloodless victory? As someone said on the page earlier, folks love a winner.

[Debaser]

Thanks, gobear. Those are my thoughts exactly. After reading the entirety of this thread, I was unable to write my feelings as clearly as you did because I was choking back rage and disgust.

Dinsdale
While part of me hoped the initial raid would be successful in decapitating Iraqi leadership, another part of me feared the consequences if we were able to topple a foreign nation so easily. Might make it all the more attractive for certain parties to try to repeat their “success.”

I feel it is almost desirable that we incur some sizeable casualties - in order for the public to be forced to acknowledge the enormity of this undertaking, and to prevent the administration that initiated it from deflecting justified criticism in the popular glow following a fast, relatively painless victory.

TVAA
As such, while I would hope that as few people are killed in this war as possible, I’m forced to face the fact that if the war goes well, those in power will reap political benefits. If the war goes poorly, those who began it will probably be removed from office, and travesties such as the protective war strategy won’t be attempted again in the near future.

Therefore, I find myself obligated to hope that the war goes badly.

You give yourselves away by mentioning the administration.

I don’t think the motives of these people wishing for US and allied soldier to die in Iraq are as pure as the theoretical “bloody calculus” that you describe. Their hatred of the current republican administration is leading them to wish for US soldiers to die for them to reap political benefit from it.

You yourself say:

DanielWithrow
For political reasons, I hope the war goes badly. But that’s far, far outweighed by humanitarian reasons. I want the war to end with a minimum of bloodshed.

So, it’s clear that you understand this position. However, unlike the others you understand that humanitarian reasons and minimizing bloodshed are far more important than the political fallout back home.

[Debaser]

Oh, on preview I see more evidence:

Dinsdale
And I resent that our current administration has manipulated events such that I am forced to reach conclusions I find so distasteful.

You want US troops to die so that Bush will look bad. Sick.

[Latro]

Sorry, Debaser, you have it backwards.
We don’t hate the war because it was started by an administration we hate. We hate the administration for starting a war we hate.