Marines/Soldiers Die for an "Important Cause"

[joe1347]

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=4194479&nav=81AX

". . . . WHITE HOUSE The Bush administration says it's "saddened" to hear of the deadly roadside bombing that killed ten Marines in Iraq.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan says a loss like this represents a "tough day" for the U-S cause -- the kind that President Bush has warned about.

But the spokesman says the soldiers sacrificed "for an important cause," and America will be forever grateful. . . ."

-------------------------

Simple Question: Can someone tell me what exactly is the important cause that these marines died for?

 

[Mephisto]

I can't be cynical enough that I can't believe these days aren't tough on the Bush administration. The casualties in Iraq are the prime reason his favorability has dropped in the polls.

They used to feed us the same B.S. about Vietnam - we were on the forefront of Democracy in Southeast Asia, we were defending freedom in our country, we are making sacrifices that made a difference in America and so on and on and on . . .

Vietnam fell into Communist hands and NOT A DAMN THING CHANGED IN AMERICA! Well, that's not entirely true - there are 59,000 Americans who died. I have no reason to believe this war will turn out favorably from yet another administration who lied to get us into war and to make us stay the course.

 

[webfusion]

This war will conclude rapidly, in a matter of a few months, I imagine, when this Administration permits the media free access (as is Constitutionally stated) to bring a pool of reporters and film crews onto the tarmac at Andrews or Ramstein.

The daily arrival of flag-draped coffins is being kept off the TVnews. If it was allowed for the American people to see this procession, there is no way the President could maintain the force in Iraq much longer than 90 days. We, the people, would not sit still for it.

 

[bob_kark]

Simple Question: Can someone tell me what exactly is the important cause that these marines died for?

Well the simple answer would be that they were taking part in a counter-insurgency operation in Anbar Province, west of the capital Baghdad.

A more complicated answer is that they were trying to restore the security of Iraq.

An even more complicated answer is that they were trying to restore the security of Iraq which was nearly destroyed by the invasion of Iraq without a solid exit strategy, far too few troops, and lax security around borders and abandoned weapons depots.

 

[Ladewig]

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=4194479&nav=81AX

". . . . WHITE HOUSE The Bush administration says it's "saddened" to hear of the deadly roadside bombing that killed ten Marines in Iraq.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan says a loss like this represents a "tough day" for the U-S cause -- the kind that President Bush has warned about.

But the spokesman says the soldiers sacrificed "for an important cause," and America will be forever grateful. . . ."

-------------------------

Simple Question: Can someone tell me what exactly is the important cause that these marines died for?

No one has ever accused me of being a Bush apolgist, but I think it is too early to tell if the Iraq war will be a success or not. Furthermore, even if our efforts in Iraq fail, trying to bring democracy to Iraq is, as the Bush administration has put it, an important cause.

 

[joe1347]

No one has ever accused me of being a Bush apolgist, but I think it is too early to tell if the Iraq war will be a success or not. Furthermore, even if our efforts in Iraq fail, trying to bring democracy to Iraq is, as the Bush administration has put it, an important cause.

trying to bring democracy to Iraq is, as the Bush administration has put it, an important cause - Why should any American citizen care whether Iraq is democratic or not? How is that worth what may ultimately be $One Trillion US dollars and thousands of US lives - not to mention the severely wounded and the longterm hardships on the families.

 

[Cylinder]

This war will conclude rapidly, in a matter of a few months, I imagine, when this Administration permits the media free access (as is Constitutionally stated) to bring a pool of reporters and film crews onto the tarmac at Andrews or Ramstein.

I must have missed that part in my government class. Can you point me to the part of the US Constitution that grants members of the press the right to "free access" to Andrews AFB or Ramstein AB?

 

[joe1347]

This war will conclude rapidly, in a matter of a few months, I imagine, when this Administration permits the media free access (as is Constitutionally stated) to bring a pool of reporters and film crews onto the tarmac at Andrews or Ramstein.

The daily arrival of flag-draped coffins is being kept off the TVnews. If it was allowed for the American people to see this procession, there is no way the President could maintain the force in Iraq much longer than 90 days. We, the people, would not sit still for it.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the nightly image of coffins will turn Americans against the war. If anything, the coffins will harden the resolve of many Americans - with the desire for revenge.

However, the Bush Admin asking for yet another $100+ billion supplemental funding bill to pay for the war (in Iraq) will definitely cause the few remaining pro-war holdouts to finally turn against the war (in Iraq). Personally, I believe that many of those currently pro-war will immediately turn against the war as soon as the war (in Iraq) requires any sort of personal sacrifice. Hence, don't look for Bush to 1) raise taxes to generate the funds desparately necessary to continue the war effort without further increasing the budget deficit or 2) re-institute the draft to provide the additional soldiers desparately needed to continue the war - or 3) I don't even expect Bush to ask for an unfunded supplemental funding bill for the war.

 

[Ladewig]

trying to bring democracy to Iraq is, as the Bush administration has put it, an important cause - Why should any American citizen care whether Iraq is democratic or not? How is that worth what may ultimately be $One Trillion US dollars and thousands of US lives - not to mention the severely wounded and the longterm hardships on the families.

For the same reason we spent some $13+ billion rebuilding Germany and Japan after WW II, because it makes the world and the U.S. safer and more stable. It will take a generation to see the results, but if (and I agree it is a huge if) Iraq becomes stable and flourishes and other middle East countries follow thier model, then there will be fewer places for Osama to recruit suicide bombers to attack the U.S. mainland, U.S. embassies, U.S. warships, and U.S. troops stationed overseas. There will be less need to send foreign aid into the region.

If you want to argue that such a gamble is not worth $1,000,000,000,000, then that is a valid position, but the cost is not a factor in determining whether it is "an important cause."

 

[Perforatu]

I think we need to separate two things here: the cause of bringing democracy to Iraq back when Saddam was still in power and the cause of bringing democracy to Iraq in its current state. I agree the latter is an important cause for America, but I don't think the former was all that important - certainly its importance to the U.S. seemed exaggerated by the White House administration. It may have been a good cause, but that's not the same as an important cause.

 

[Tmy]

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=4194479&nav=81AX

". . . . WHITE HOUSE The Bush administration says it's "saddened" to hear of the deadly roadside bombing that killed ten Marines in Iraq.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan says a loss like this represents a "tough day" for the U-S cause -- the kind that President Bush has warned about.

But the spokesman says the soldiers sacrificed "for an important cause," and America will be forever grateful. . . ."

I wonder what title this press release is saved under on his PC. I'm guessing "Soilder death response #3."

 

[joe1347]

For the same reason we spent some $13+ billion rebuilding Germany and Japan after WW II, because it makes the world and the U.S. safer and more stable. It will take a generation to see the results, but if (and I agree it is a huge if) Iraq becomes stable and flourishes and other middle East countries follow thier model, then there will be fewer places for Osama to recruit suicide bombers to attack the U.S. mainland, U.S. embassies, U.S. warships, and U.S. troops stationed overseas. There will be less need to send foreign aid into the region.

If you want to argue that such a gamble is not worth $1,000,000,000,000, then that is a valid position, but the cost is not a factor in determining whether it is "an important cause."

Sorry, I'm not buying the Bush Admin's "Spreading Terrorism" argument for continuing the War in Iraq. Iraq was not associated with Osama prior to the US invasion/occupation and definitely was not a source of terrorists attacking the US prior to the invasion/occupation - so why should Iraq support Terrorism after we (the USA) leave?

As for spending a trillion dollars not being a factor - I'm assuming that I'm misinterpreting your response. Because, one trillion $US spent on other "causes" would definitely make a difference to the USA and the entire world. For example, what if instead of spending one trillion on democratizing Iraq - the USA spent one trillion to develop an extremely low cost new source of energy? The economic and quality-of-life benefits to the USA (and the world - especially the third world) would be almost unmeasureable. What about spending the one trillion to cure AIDS, cancer, heat disease, etc.?

 

[Perforatu]

Iraq was not associated with Osama prior to the US invasion/occupation and definitely was not a source of terrorists attacking the US prior to the invasion/occupation - so why should Iraq support Terrorism after we (the USA) leave?

Well... For one thing, at least Saddam ran a mostly secular operation. Religious extremism probably didn't stand much of a chance to flourish under his rule.

 

[hodgy]

Irrespective of the politics, a volunteer soldier makes his own contract with survival. He takes the shilling and does his job, sometimes it works out good for him and sometimes bad. Either way, history determines whether he is a good or bad guy, a hero or a villain.

With this in mind the marines in the OP did not die for an 'important cause' but for the $ in their wallets. While you have volunteer soldiers you need not concern yourself with the relevance of the cause (or not at, least, in terms of body-bags). When you call civillians to the draft (e.g. VietNam) then you MUST ask the questions.

 

[Mephisto]

Irrespective of the politics, a volunteer soldier makes his own contract with survival. He takes the shilling and does his job, sometimes it works out good for him and sometimes bad. Either way, history determines whether he is a good or bad guy, a hero or a villain.

With this in mind the marines in the OP did not die for an 'important cause' but for the $ in their wallets. While you have volunteer soldiers you need not concern yourself with the relevance of the cause (or not at, least, in terms of body-bags). When you call civillians to the draft (e.g. VietNam) then you MUST ask the questions.

I almost agree with you. Since the U.S. has an all volunteer military I've heard the idea passed around that they almost deserve whatever happens to them because they volunteered, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

Military draft or not, our military is made up of basically the same people - the poor. I'd be willing to wager that the majority of our soldiers didn't join up to spread Democracy or to fight terrorism, but because they needed work. They signed up because they need health and dental benefits and because there are educational opportunities afterwards, but that alone shouldn't be enough to waste their lives for political maneuvering.

The money in their wallets is definitely one of the reasons they're in the military, but not the only reason. Neither are patriotism and nationalism the chief reasons they're soldiers. To say otherwise is to reduce them to mercenaries or zealots.

 

[webfusion]

In plain English

I must have missed that part in my government class. Can you point me to the part of the US Constitution that grants members of the press the right to "free access" to Andrews AFB or Ramstein AB?

To the extent that the access is now being denied, I think the press is being refused the purpose declared under the US Constitutoon.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

If there is any US law that abridges the freedom of the press in reporting what is transpiring with the coffins at the United States Air Bases, then that is inappropriate. I can understand a matter of "National Security" whereby totally free access to the airbases is not valid, but in the case at hand, why is there no TV pool feed from the tarmac as these soldiers' remains are off-loaded like baggage, day after day? If there is no law, then the President should not restrict the access of CNN, et al.

 

[hodgy]

I would reduce them to mercenaries, no-one has to join the Army. Of course there are influences that might predispose one to do so but ultimately a country needs soldiers and some people may be more inclined to take the shilling than others - so be it.

I served 9 years in the British Army and consider any consequences of that as my own responsibility. In fact, removing that responsibility from me is removing my humanity - its saying that I am not capable of making my own decisions - that someone else is better qualified to decide my fate.

Well - I don't agree and for the pride and self-determination of any soldiers killed in Iraq, I'll say for them, that they chose their fate and we can remember and respect them for it.

 

[joe1347]

Irrespective of the politics, a volunteer soldier makes his own contract with survival. He takes the shilling and does his job, sometimes it works out good for him and sometimes bad. Either way, history determines whether he is a good or bad guy, a hero or a villain.

With this in mind the marines in the OP did not die for an 'important cause' but for the $ in their wallets. While you have volunteer soldiers you need not concern yourself with the relevance of the cause (or not at, least, in terms of body-bags). When you call civillians to the draft (e.g. VietNam) then you MUST ask the questions.

You're almost right - except for one minor issue of the National Guardsmen being sent off to a war that most did not sign up to fight. The same could be said for many of the reservists, stop loss types, and especially the inactive reservists that got swept up in the involuntary "Draft".

However, back to the original question - what exactly is the important cause that these "volunteers" are dying for?

 

[hodgy]

You're almost right - except for one minor issue of the National Guardsmen being sent off to a war that most did not sign up to fight. The same could be said for many of the reservists, stop loss types, and especially the inactive reservists that got swept up in the involuntary "Draft".

However, back to the original question - what exactly is the important cause that these "volunteers" are dying for?

I'm not going to argue the political issue - that's for posterity and your country to make a call on.

WRT national guardsmen and reservists - same argument as for regular soldiers. I would not debase their humanity by suggesing that I knew better than they. They are adults, not children.

 

[hodgy]

The point is - feel free to ask why you should be paying for this war but recognise that the soldiers fight voluntarily, to assume your politics applies to them is to debase their humanity.