I think my distaste of the president comes from his absurd lack of diplomatic ability. Of course I have an even greater dislike for the rest of the world who is content to let Sadaam stay in power.
Whether I feel we should or should not be in Iraq is not based on the number of casualties. I definitely feel Sadaam should be removed from power. Should we be risking our soldiers lives or should we be enabling the Iraqi people to do it? Not sure.
Not that the war has started, I am all for finishing it quickly and decisively.
Essentialy, what Saddam Hussein is saying is that American’s lack foresight so much, they are actually shocked when people die in a war! We think that little?
You were neutral before but once people started dying, you are leaning against it? Why were you neutral before?
And saying Bush got us into this mess is a huuuuuuuuuuuge step.
I’m not saying I’m for the war, but saying that people who express ideas like greck give the whole anti-war movement a black eye.
I was against the war before it even began. I think, given the publicity over the coalition casualties and the apparent surprise of the American people that troops actually die in war, that Bush will start to see his popularity decline as this drags on and the body bags pile up.
Just the opposite for me. I spent 14 years in the military and realize that war means casualities. I’m happy that the numbers are so low…so far.
The opposite part comes with every new atrocity Hussein’s regime commits. I think he’s trying to set some kind of record by violating every international law, law of armed conflict, & Geneva convention, within the first couple of weeks of the war. He’s got a good head start & I think he’s only missed a few. I’m more convinced that ever that this regime needs to be gone.
Yeah…I’m pretty much embarrassed that the US has turned into a nation of big fat pussies. Why fight for something when all you have to do is whine and complain until you get your way?
Anyhow…
No one expected a war with no casualties. That is a media creation.
I’m, with Mahaloth on this one. Either be for the war or against it based on the merits of whether it is a battle that should be fought. Don’t base it on how easy it is. That’s a pretty shitty way of going through life.
The casualties I have a problem with are those in the 507th and others to come from ambushes on the supply lines.
Yeah it’s terrific the 3-7th made it up near Baghdad within days. However, the hubris (of Rumsfeld, DoD, Franks…) in assuming the supply lines would be free and clear (as colourful wildflowers bloomed in their wake) was very wrong.
The soldiers of the ambushed 507th - and certainly they are soldiers - are lightly armed support troops - chefs, mechanics, supply clerks. They (and of course the whole of the supply lines) should have a modicum of heavy escort - even if that meant less “teeth” up front.
Saddam was very wrong to think his deplorable, malevolent executions of surrending soldiers in any way dims the coalition resolve.
Maybe it’s just me, but I feel Bush is trying to fight his daddy’s war. Maybe if ole George 1 would have finished the job in the first place, we wouldn’t be here right now. Either way, I have to give George 2 props for saying to hell with the politics. In my opinion, politics have caused more casualties than the enemy in previous wars. If you decide to send America’s fighting men and women to war, so be it. We signed the contract, we live with it. But don’t tie our hands with your stupid rules.
Many countries don’t like us. When I was in Okinawa, everyday there were protests at our gates. Go home, We don’t want you here ect… were the common chants we heard on a day-to-day basis. But who would they call for aid if we left?? It’s not just that specific country that I’m pissed about. Our supposed allies have turned their backs on us when we asked for their support in the UN. I say it’s about time for the US to leave the UN, pull our troops back to our borders, and say to the world. “There ya go. You wanted us to mind our own business, fine. Kill each other for all we care.”
Anyone realize how much money we spend rebuilding a country after we bomb the hell out of it?? Why?? We gave HUGE loans to Japan after the war to rebuild. Have they begun to pay us back?? The answer is no, they haven’t even begun to pay the intrest on those loans yet. With a national debt in the trillions, it’s time to look inward, stop worrying about the latest crisis in some country that we can’t even spell.
Um… he did. The explicitly stated job, the first time, was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Nothing more. We went over, we did that, and we left.
In retrospect, should we have deposed Saddam? Well, yeah, probably, but hindsight is &c. In '91, we had a clear mission, we accomplished it, and we left. Success.
I was neutral before (to reiterate) because I simply didn’t think I was informed enough about the issues. I could (still can) understand all sides of the story so to speak.
And saying Dubya got us into this mess isn’t a big step at all. I suppose “further into this mess” might be more accurate given that he didn’t start the whole conflict. But he is the commander in chief, he has been the most enthusiastic and most powerful proponent of the invasion.
We certainly wouldn’t be at war if it weren’t for the recent actions of our president. How is that a big step? Sorry, huuuuuuuuuuge? (did I get the right amount of "u"s in there?)
I’d have to say that Saddam was wrong about me. I, too, opposed the war. While there is a coherent argument why the war is a good thing, it isn’t the case the administration is making, and the case against it is, on balance, more compelling. I can’t say that I’m a big fan of Bush, either. But now that we’re in it, I don’t know if I think a Pyrrhic victory is possible. At this stage I’m tending to conclude that no matter the cost of winning, the cost of losing will be greater.
Saddam is banking on America being soft. If we prove him correct, that will only further future intransigence from other rogue states. I’m not about to suggest that our record of foreign policy is spotless, but when we do decide to do something good we need the weight of reputation behind us. Ideally we’d walk out of this conflict with a reputation that means next time we say, “Hey, you! Stop that genocide!”, whom ever it is we are saying it to will stop. I think we need to get into our minds, and into the world’s minds that we are willing to take this fight, step by step, to the most horrific extreme necessary to complete our stated goal of getting rid of Saddam and installing a democratic polity.
Next time we’re facing a situation where 800,000 are about to be hacked to death by machetes in the space of ten days, I want the hands holding the blades to know that if it comes to it, we’ll go in there and kill everybody rather than see one side be murdered by the other.
Of course, if we boot Saddam without having to pull a Dresden on Baghdad, that would be fantastic. The easier this fight is the better. The fewer people who are killed or wounded, American, British, Polish, or Iraqi, the better. That is unambiguously true, IMO. But backing out on this one will be to the world’s detriment, IMO.