That’s a pathetic strawman, Starving. Even before actual figures were available, we knew that this war was doing a lot more damage to Iraqi civilians than to American soldiers. And, since we ostensibly fought the war to help the Iraqis (at least, that’s the latest reason given, since no WMDs were found and no ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda have been proven), that is a very important fact that all Americans should care very much about. But not all do.
I call bullshit, SA. It isn’t an either/or – that if one cares about the Iraqi casualties somehow one must not care about the Americans. Or vice versa.
I care about them ALL. I’ve cared about them ALL since before this damn fool war was launched. I care about the American, British, yes, even Polish troops. I care about the Iraqis, whether soldiers obliterated in shock and awe or civlians caught up in war’s meatgrinder. I care about the aid workers, the people trying to reconstruct what our bombs have destroyed, the journalists trying to report what’s happening.
I care because they’re being maimed and killed. I care because I believe the war was founded upon shoddy intelligence, launched with shoddy planning, and botched terribly by the occupation.
I for one don’t try to use any of these casualties as a “weapon” for some political game. Nor do I believe that most of those opposed to the Iraq War do so. We believe that it is in fact the current administration that devalues those lives for political gain. Obviously, you disagree. That, to me, is the real schism.
Unfortunately, we’re fighting despicable people who think nothing of forcing women and children to walk in front of them as they approach American soldiers, and who think nothing of living among civilian populations, even the extent of forcing civilians to let them live in their homes, in order to: a) save their own cowardly lives; and b) to make it harder on the Americans who have to occasionally kill Iraqi civilians; and c) to infuriate American citizens that hear of civilian casualties.
With regard to “c,” you are playing right into their hands.
Gee whiz! That reminds me of . . . what’s that word . . . some other totally unjust and immoral American war . . . starts with a “V” . . .
ETF, we had been hearing over and over and over on these boards about the 1,000 American soldier deaths for weeks prior to the disclosure of Iraqi citizen deaths (and in fact we’ve been hearing of the total number killed as long as the war has been going on). BrainGlutton claimed in his post that it wasn’t the American deaths that were dividing the country, but the Iraqi ones.
I was calling bullshit because the American deaths were most certainly being used as an anti-war weapon prior to this disclosure and were therefore contributing to the divide. For BrainGlutton to now maintain that it wasn’t them that were causing the divide but rather the Iraqi deaths struck me as more than a little disingenuous.
Has it not occurred to you that a goodly proportion of the insurgents are in fact that civilian population, who want the foreign invaders to get the hell out of their country?
So what are you saying…that if the war were justified and righteous the insurgents would come out from behind women’s skirts and fight in the open, and that it’s only because the war is unjust and immoral that these scummy pieces of shit are hiding among the civilian populace?
Yes, and it’s also occurred to me that want us to do so in order that they can either return to the murderous oppressive ways of the Hussein regime, or so they can take over the country to be run by a repressive and often murderous theocracy such as in Iran…who by the way is responsible for much of the insurgency now occurring.
I would say that fewer American soldiers have been killed, and fewer civilians have been killed, in this war as a result of American desire to keep soldier and civilian casualties to a minimum than has ever been the case in a military action of this size in the history of the world. And by a very large order of magnitude.
Which is commendable, but does nothing to ease the agony of those maimed or bereaved.
As to “they can either [A] return to the murderous oppressive ways of the Hussein regime, or so they can ** take over the country to be run by a repressive and often murderous theocracy such as in Iran” – You may be sanguine as to the likelihood that a [C] stable representative democracy will be running things in Iraq soon. My belief is that the Iraqis will wind up with either A or B, and that a Potemkin village C will exist only long enough to get the occupying army out of the way.
No, but it does spare a great many others that agony.
And I would remind you that a great many more people than 100,000 suffered the agony of lost loved ones under Hussein, and while the fact this is so isn’t the reason we went in, it’s a pretty peachy side effect in my opinion.
True, none of us knows for sure what will eventually happen. But one thing we can be sure of is that the country that eventually comes into being is much less likely to be a threat to the U.S. and its own neighbors than was the case with Hussein’s Iraq.
Exactly.
Just like when we installed the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were less likely to be a threat than the opium producing warlords they replaced.
Of course, now the opium warlords are back in power, because they were really the good guys all along. Yay!
And just like with the Taliban, if Iraq becomes – either on its own or by harboring terrorists and ensuring they thrive within its borders – it will have to be crushed.
Nothing is certain in the world. Japan and Germany were once our mortal enemies. Should we not have helped rebuild them after we defeated them because they might come back and bite us in the but someday?
Still, we’ve at least we’ve gotten rid of a known threat, not only to us but to its own neighbors as well…and the Taliban never amounted to much anyway as a military power.
This is just silly. To whatever degree “opium warlords” are back in power, it certainly isn’t because they were the good guys all along.
(And pardon me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they just duly elect a president or something there?)
I wonder what the “opium warlords” think of that? “Opium warlords” are outlaws. Countries have always had outlaws. That doesn’t mean legitimate governments can’t exist, and it doesn’t mean life isn’t better for 99.99 percent of the population outside their purview.
No . . . I’m claiming that it’s only because the war is unjust and immoral that the American troops are there to kill or be killed in the first place. Just like in that other war beginning with “V”.
Excuse me, BrainGlutton, but people suffer and are killed in every war. It doesn’t matter whether it’s “justified” or not. To say our soldiers wouldn’t be getting killed if they weren’t fighting in an “unjustified” war just doesn’t make sense. It’s apples and oranges.
Perhaps what you really want to say but don’t for fear of opening a can of worms you don’t want to contend with or spend the time defending, is that if we never went to war our soldiers would never die. What this boils down to, of course, is advocation for peace-at-any-price, which inevitably leads to servitude.
There has never been a war fought on the face of this planet that someone didn’t think was unjustified. This is why we conservatives believe we should get behind our leaders 100% once the decision to go to war has been made. Yes, some people are going to object to it; and others are going to support it. There will never be a war everybody approves of, and as long as there are elements within a country fighting to hamper its war effort, they only lend greater hope and determination to their country’s enemies and the result is the liklihood of a more protracted war with even greater casualties both among its own forces and the civilian populace of the country where the war is taking place.
So, Starving Artist, when are you signing up for your tour in Iraq?
I’m wondering if S.A. has any kids he’d like to send to the war, or maybe has some nephews in their teens (like I do, and I’m more than a little afraid for him), who he’d be willing to sacrifice for a little black gold. Whaddya say, Starvey, would you pledge your son to Bush’s dirty little war, or would you weasle him into the Natl. Guard ahead of poorer, less privildged kids like Bush’s daddy did?
I don’t believe we invaded Iraq for oil and I can understand the reasons for this war, though I cannot support it. In short, I am not a leftist nut. I hope you will take my word on that.
The attitude displayed in this post scares the pants off me. There is nothing more patriotic than dissent. All citizens have a duty and an absolute right to tell their government when they are doing something wrong. A war is not a free pass to supress or shame those dissenters. If Americans do not feel free to question a President’s decision to go to war, there is something terribly wrong. The consequence of suppressing dissent is tyranny. Leaders become more likely to use the military for more and more questionable purposes, because they don’t face the voice of the people. Even their opponent in the upcoming election can be silenced using the logic that they are giving comfort to the enemy.
I am a conservative in many ways, but the Constitution provides rights of assembly, speech and petition for damn good reasons. There are no circumstances under which the use of those rights to question life or death decisions becomes a bad thing.
I second that !
Wow, your cite added to what I knew about the historical non-constancy of U.S. political parties. Not only did the Dems favor prohibition and claim to be more single-minded in enforcing it, but their positions on States Rights and Asiatic Immigration are the opposite of what many folks might expect.
True Blue Jack
Maybe. But was your experience representative of the US at large? And is your perception of the current situation in US schools accurate?
To give an example : let’s say that a teacher is complaining about the ignorance of today’s students, and compares it devaforably with his own memories of what schools and students were like back then. Problem is : if he became teacher, it’s likely that he was relatively gifted, came from relatively educated middle-class family, living in a relatively acceptable neighborhood, and had friends who had similar interests, abilities and backgrounds.
He never was familiar with not-that-bright students from poor families living in disfranchised neighborhood “back then”. But now, he’s a teacher and is confronted to a reality that he previously ignored. He could very well blame it on social changes while actually no significant changes took place.
The majority of people who are reasonnably educated and well off, when relying on their memories, are comparing an experience that took place in rather favorable conditions to a perception based in large part to the worst the current world has to offer because it’s the worst that makes the headlines.