Debaser, I think you’re right to a degree. In fact, my strongly anti-Bush leanings make me question my opposition to this war. I’m pretty sure I’d oppose it no matter who was waging it (I was strongly opposed to US action in Iraq and Sudan during Clinton’s years as well), but I’m still wary of it.
Nevertheless, when folks say they think that casualties might force those in power to be removed from office, I don’t read this as a “Rah team rah!” statement. Rather, I read folks as saying that what happens in the political realm has repercussions in the real world. I do think it’s a restatement of the bloody calculus I’m describing.
Hoping for the deaths of soldiers is unacceptable to me, even though such deaths might lead to a repudiation of the preemptive strike doctrine. However, there are other ways that such a doctrine could be repudiated, I believe, that don’t have unacceptable consequences:
No WMDs in usable form could turn up in Iraq, removing one of the more compelling justifications for the invasion.
The world community could impose economic hardships on the US (e.g., back out of agreements like GATT), signaling their displeasure with us.
Whoever opposes Bush in 2004 could make an eloquent, impassioned case that this war endangered lives both at home and abroad unnecessarily even while it isolated the US, making it more difficult for us to achieve our international objectives.
I wish for items 1 and 3, and while I don’t wish for item 2, I do think it’d be entirely justified.
Debaser - please do not affix your partisan blinders on me. Please answer me, who proposed and began this conflict if not the current administration? If I oppose this action, who should I blame/criticise if not the current administration?
Moreover, I do not view this quasi-imperialistic stance as necessarily “Republican” in nature.
Feel free to disbelieve me, but I would be as opposed to this current action if it were being waged by a democratic or independent administration, or a country other than the US.
If the others had your wisdom maybe they could come up with some ways of their agenda coming to fruition without wishing for US, British and Australian boys to come home in body bags.
I don’t mean to simply be insulting, althought I do find your position so abhorant that I cannot help myself, Dinsdale. You seriously should seek some wisdom in the posts of Daniel in this thread. He shares your political views and opposition to this war. He manages to do it without wishing for our soldiers deaths.
For me, the urgency is that Iraq has been attempting to get nuclear weapons. I think the battle was necessary before they got those weapons. Afterwards would be too late.
No I wasn’t a big fan of Bush when he got elected, I very much disliked him when he came up with this war, I loathed him when he started pushing it down our throats, now I hate him.
Well, you were saying you would be against the war no matter which country or administration was behind it. I asked a legitimate question: “What if the UN was behind it?”
I would be heartened if we were acting as a cooperative effort with respect for international organizations.
Instead, I see the current action as being done with disdain for, not only Iraq’s sovereignty, but also the international community.
I would probably support the action even if I felt the US had manipulated the UN in a manner to obtain support for a selfish policy. But in this instance, we did not even see the need for such a pretense.
I apologise that I am unable to perfectly predict how I would react to various hypothetical situations. All I can say with certainly is that this present action is sickening.
So, if we were invading Iraq with UN blue armbands on our soldiers then you would be ok with it.
However, because we are invading Iraq without the blue armbands, you are opposed to it. Not only that, you are so against it you are actually hoping for US soldiers to die because it will prove you right and the Bush administration wrong.
You want US and allied troops to die because you can see a political advantage from it. This is just fucking disgusting and wrong.
Debaser, I again apologize for my inability to perfectly predict how I would react to hypothetical situations.
But I do feel that if this were a UN-supported action, various factors would be different other than simply the addition of colored armbands.
I regret that I see little purpose in trying to respond to your posts reasonably, as you insist on mischaracterizing my motivations and concerns, despite my best efforts to explain otherwise.
You brought them up, not me. You said that if any country or administration were doing the war in Iraq you would be against it. All I did was say: how about the UN?
Don’t blame me because a simple question was enough to derail your argument.
You want the war in Iraq to go badly and have high US and allied casualties. I think this position is evil and insane. We’ll let those who read this thread decide who is being unreasonable.
You’re right about there being little purpose in trying to convince me, though.
If you say: I want a lot of American soldiers to die in Iraq because…
I don’t care what comes next, despite your best efforts to justify it. There isn’t any argument that could be made that would make me wish for the war in Iraq to go badly and have high casualties.
How about: I want a lot of American soldiers to die because… a lot more of them won’t die in the wars, that would otherwise be yet to come.
Which is the issue here, really.
You want real, living breathing US soldiers who are fighting in a real war right now to die. So that thier deaths might help to prevent some possible, theoretical future wars that may or may not happen as a result.
This is just dumb.
Even if this argument is truly what you all beleive, which I still seriously doubt. As I pointed out earlier, I think it has more to do with the hatred of the Bush administration, and some peoples willingness to hope for high US casualties just to prove him wrong.
Dinsdale, you’re having trouble answering the UN question, I think, because it’s vague. Allow me to make it specific enough that you can answer it:
If the only thing that had changed about this war was that the UN Security Council had approved a resolution authorizing force – if most of the world still opposed it, if it were still being fought using the preemptive strike doctrine, if there were still a buttload of false and deceptive information used by the US to justify the war, if it were still being fought by US and British soldiers only – would you support it then?
That’s a hypothetical that’s sufficiently filled out that it can be answered, I believe.
Debaser, Four weeks ago there were plenty of pro war people who wanted real living breathing US soldiers to die to prevent possible theoretical future wars. We are now fighting that war and they are dying.
How are the wishes of the “liberate Iraq” faction of three weeks ago any different than the views of Latro or Dinsdale? They believe that a lengthy war with casualties, now that we are into it, is the best possible hope for a lasting peace, just as people three weeks ago felt that war at all (and they were naive at best if they believed this was going to happen without casualties) was the best possible hope for a lasting peace.
Well, as a matter of fact, isn’t that exactly the argument the administration is using?
We must attack now because we just possibly might have to fight them in the future, with more deaths.
Now that the ‘other side’ is using the same argument it is ‘just dumb’.
Sure, Debaser, all the world’s issues just boil down to whether you are a democrat or a republican.
What is this ‘prove him wrong’ idea of yours anyway?
Is it that he said something like ‘This is going to be a walk in the park’ and we want to be able to say say ‘Ha!, in your face’?
Then read the posts again.
We aren’t trying to disprove anything, in this case, just saying that his actions are wrong and extremely dangerous. There isn’t anything to prove or disprove here. What is under dispute is what the effect of this war will be.
If there are low casualties, will the threshold, to go on to the next, be lower than when there are high casualties. Might a sufficiently high number of casualties even prevent a next one?