How about this: The SDMB does not have a Smiley to express how ridiculous this statement is.
:rolleyes:
…no…not enough contempt
:smack:
…hmmm…better…
:wally
…no…its still just not right
I think it’s funny how the same people who bitch and moan and complain about every security measure as if Bush and Co tore up the Bill of Rights will then criticize that same government for going to war to defend those rights for Iraqis 10,000 miles away.
If you want to wish people dieing, wish that they die so that millions of Iraqis get to live in a country free from having their tounges cut out by a sadistic dictator.
A few weeks ago the pro-war people were willing to risk the lives of US soldiers to bring an end to Saddam’s regime.
This is entirely different from those in this thread who are hoping for US soldiers to die.
It would be reasonable to argue that “If there are high US casualties during the war then one positive result would be the US will be less likely to engage in wars in the future.”
They are not saying this. They are saying they want high US casualties so that the US will be less likely to engage in wars in the future.
I believe there is considerable value in at least presenting the impression of going through proper channels and obtaining agreement, even if in reality it is a facade for a lot of bribery and arm twisting.
One of my main objections to this action is the US acting (largely) alone to enforce an agreement between Iraq and the UN.
Speking in overbroad terms, I believe that the brightest future is one in which there is increased multinational cooperation. Unfortunately (in the minds of many Americans) such agreement cannot be reached if we require US interests be consistently given priority.
In a couple of hours I’ll be going on vacation for a little over a week, so I will be unable to participate further in this disussion. I appreciate the opportunity to have expressed my views, however inarticulately I have done so. And I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. Please continue in my absence.
The administration isn’t wishing for more deaths of anyone. They are going way out of their way to avoid civilian deaths.
Also, the lives lost due to Saddam’s regime are well documented. It’s not some theoretical future war
I didn’t start the partisan stuff in this thread. I just pointed it out. In the same breath people were wishing that US troops died and complaining about the administration.
Like I stated earlier, it’s one thing to debate the effect that high casualties would have. It’s another thing entirely to want high casualties.
BTW, if this theory of high casualties in one war prevents future wars from happening can I see a cite?
My cases against this would include all of human history. If this were possible, then wouldn’t we never have fought again after the horrors of say WWII? Do we need to see higher casualties than that in Iraq to make the world a peaceful place?
Shodan: Did you read anything I wrote past the first sentence? Allow me to clarify and expand on what I was trying to say.
First of all, I DON’T WANT CASUALTIES. I don’t want American soldiers to die. I don’t want British soldiers to die. I don’t want Australian soldiers to die. I don’t want Polish soldiers to die. I don’t want Iraqi Kurds, Shiias, Sunnis, Turkomen, or Christians to die. I don’t even particularly want Iraqi soldiers to die*(although I don’t particularly want Sadaam or Baathist leadership to go on living either.) If however, we do suffer casualties, I can see how it may in the long run help us.
Now, I will attempt to explain my logic, the abstract point of view I referred to in my first post. If we suffer substantial casualties** and fight on rather than bugging out as we have at times in the past***, and persevere until we win, I think that we will have sent a message to both enemies and friends. I feel we will be more valued as an ally and more feared as an enemy. It will be difficult (or dangerous for our enemies) for others to question our devotion to our ideals/interests if they know our actions back up our words even at risk of consequences to ourselves.
If we suffer casualties it will also be a reminder to us that war is not easy, not to be entered into lightly. When the war started I assumed that it would be over very quickly, and I still hope it will be. But I do fear that easy success will encourage us to send the troops in to other areas, where our interests are less at stake, where we are less likely to stick it out. Did Somalia undercut the military credibility we achieved in Gulf War I, thus encouraging our enemies (and providing them with a blueprint - how to fight the American military and survive)? Possibly.
Obviously the flip side of the last paragraph is that an America more reluctant to use military force may be unwilling to intervene in the next Kosovo or even the next Rwanda (and I recognize that if we don’t lead, others may not go).
I’ll make an exception for those who engage in war crimes (using human shields, murdering POW’s, etc.)
** As I mentioned in my first post, I am not sure what I would consider substantial casualties - more than Grenada, certainly nothing like the Somme
***I do realize that the US has fought out a number of conflicts to the end, despite casualties.
Well we have covered the causes for this particular war. The consensus is that “liberation of Irak” was the eleventh hour excuse when no other could be found. Spare me the dramatics. If this war was really to liberate Irak not only I butthe rest of the world would support Bush and then, only then this war would be legitimate. Add approval by the U.N. and this war would be legal.
Look guys, It is this simple. Saddam is the only evil ruthless dictator in the world (even the part of the world that doesn’t have oil) so when he is gone, the world will be a place of milk and honey.
Then Bush will have earned his place in history as a sort of mix between Solomon and David.
Does everyone agree that the best strategy is the one that minimizes casualties of all humans in this and future wars (but de-prioritizing casualties amongst those who commit crimes against humanity)?
From my reading, everyone agrees with this. The disagreement is on which strategy accomplishes this goal.
Debaser, I don’t know If I’m for against the position.
The reason for my post is that there are a number of people who seem to think that this really is the final showdown between Good and Evil.
I can see the argument that if it all goes to easy, another leader wil be demonised and it’ll all happen again. (perhaps closer to an election)
But I don’t want to see anyone die, not Iraquis, not “Allies” and not Iraquis under Saddam’s continued rule.
I really don’t know which is the lesser of two evils.
But I am worried that Bush will try this again if it is all too easy. Conversely, if it is a hard and costly (casualties) war, the people may be unwilling to do it again. Even if there is a real justification this time. It’s a bit like crying wolf.