What's your limit?

[Crossbow]

For supporters of the war in Iraq:

Is there a point where the casulties in Iraq become so great that you would say "It isn't worth it"?

What would be your limit for american deaths?

For civilian deaths?

I have to admit, I am starting to wonder about that too.

Rumsfeld is starting to sound a good bit like McNamara when he gave that interview the other day where he discussed the "metrics" of terrorism and that he did not know if the USA was killing the terrorists at faster rate than the terrorists were being produced, and until such data can be obtained, we do not know if we are winning the war on terrorism or not.

Ugh! That is about the same sort of thing that McNamara told Johnson regarding interdiction of NVA troops before they reached their fighting stations in South Vietnam.

 

[Garrette]

Ummmm....I'm a bit confused comparing this:

In WWI and II, the allies were fighting for their freedom, in which case it doesn't make sense to stop. In Iraq, the Americans are fighting for the Iraqi's freedom, so if they leave, the biggest damage to the states is political.

I don't think the US got into WWI or II for altruistic reasons.

and this:

Well, the US didn't go into Iraq for altruistic reasons. They went in to keep the US safe from weapons of mass destruction. When they didn't find WMD, they said that they were there to free Iraq. Now they're staying to repair the damage. That's PR, not altruism.

They seem to disagree. The first implies altruism in Iraq while the second bluntly refutes it.

Also, why can't repairing the damage be altruism?

Mind you, I'm not saying it is. I'm all for a partly altruistic foreign policy, but not one that is largely so.

Frankly, I think the US is better served by helping fix up Iraq and making an ally over the long run. Altruism and pragmatism can be pretty good bedfellows.

 

[WildCat]

The reason that GWB and Tony Blair were giving as the reason that it was neccesary to invade imediately, was that Saddam had the temperment, desire, and the resources to post an immediate danger to the western world.
Not all true - Bush specifically said in the SOTU address that there was not an imminent threat. And he did have weapons programs in place, if not actual weapons.

If there was evidence that Iraq had WMD, the misiles to deploy them, and they were making aggresive moves towards another country, I'd say that was enough reason.

So by this reasoning you would support military action against N. Korea today?

 

[Tesserat]

I'm gonna have to post slower, or faster. I think I'm 180 degrees out of sync.

anyway:



Originally posted by Garrette


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agreement of most of the world that it's a necessary thing to do.

The reason that GWB and Tony Blair were giving as the reason that it was neccesary to invade imediately, was that Saddam had the temperment, desire, and the resources to post an immediate danger to the western world.

Most of the world disagreed with this, and as it happened, they were right.

If there was evidence that Iraq had WMD, the misiles to deploy them, and they were making aggresive moves towards another country, I'd say that was enough reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't agree with the first one at all. I never much cared for popularity as a basis for decision-making.


Yeah, I know what you mean. I do think, however, that there is a legitimicy, or sense of justice, when such actions are taken with the approval of the majority, I guess in this case, the majority of the UN. One of the reasons I say this is because the US did try to go through the UN, but when that didn't work, they ignored the UN.




The fourth is where a problem arises. There was evidence. Just turns out that the evidence was apparently wrong. Whether Bush/Blair knew it was wrong prior to the war is another matter, but the evidence existed. Proof did not exist, but evidence did.


OK, change that to "strong evidence". And I'd argue that it isn't another matter whether or not B&B knew that the evidence was apparently wrong. They were the ones who made the decision to invade.


In addition, the fourth does not indicate a requirement for world agreement.


I was saying it as a continuation of the previous. I wasn't clear.



As long as we're doing hypotheticals, assume that Bush and Blair had been right and we found craploads of WMDs when we rolled into Iraq. Given that the majority of the world would still have disagreed, would Bush/Blair still have been wrong?


Now that's a hard one. China has WMD, North Korea is going nuclear, I'm not sure on the complete list of countries with WMD, but the US would be on it. So the desire to use WMD is important as well. Saddam has pretty much proven that he's not sane, so it'd definately be volatile.

I guess I'd be evenly split as to whether or not I'd say that B&B were wrong. On the negative side, by invading, they'd pretty much ensure that Saddam would try to use his WMD as quickly as possible.

 

[Tesserat]

Not all true - Bush specifically said in the SOTU address that there was not an imminent threat.

sorry - missed that. So why did they have to invade now?

So by this reasoning you would support military action against N. Korea today?

I wasn't clear that it wasn't a stand alone reason, it was tied to the world majority thing (clause? reason?), which should have been written as the UN. I've been editing video all night, I haven't slept, and it's 5 AM on the west coast. I'm trying to be coherent.

So to answer your question, the way I wrote it, yep, the way I thought I wrote it, I'd say that the UN has a responsibility to seriously address the situation.

 

[Tesserat]

Ummmm....I'm a bit confused comparing this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In WWI and II, the allies were fighting for their freedom, in which case it doesn't make sense to stop. In Iraq, the Americans are fighting for the Iraqi's freedom, so if they leave, the biggest damage to the states is political.

I don't think the US got into WWI or II for altruistic reasons.

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



and this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the US didn't go into Iraq for altruistic reasons. They went in to keep the US safe from weapons of mass destruction. When they didn't find WMD, they said that they were there to free Iraq. Now they're staying to repair the damage. That's PR, not altruism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They seem to disagree. The first implies altruism in Iraq while the second bluntly refutes it.

It's fatigue, I was trying to take shortcuts.
In the first paragraph, I was commenting the ideas of limits. I was saying that while tho Allies in WW's were fighting for their own freedom, the stated purpose of the US's continued presence in Iraq was to fight for the freedom of Iraq. (plus rebuilding, but I was replying to your war examples) My point was that there isn't the same penalty for bugging out.

As written, it could be interpreted as schitzo.

Also, why can't repairing the damage be altruism?

It could be. I just don't think it is. I'm sure however, that there are many soldiers in Iraq who are acting altruistically, (word?), as much as their orders allow them.

Frankly, I think the US is better served by helping fix up Iraq and making an ally over the long run.

I agree, but only because I don't think the casulties will go over 700 US soldier deaths.

Altruism and pragmatism can be pretty good bedfellows.

Yes. yes, very much so, and well put.



edited (for the fourth time) because I'm so tired I can't type strIght

 

[epepke]

For supporters of the war in Iraq:

Is there a point where the casulties in Iraq become so great that you would say "It isn't worth it"?

What would be your limit for american deaths?

For civilian deaths?

This disturbs me.

At this point, whether or not one supported the war is irrelevant. It happened; it truly is history; and there is an American occupation force now. Those are the facts, and nothing short of a time machine is going to put a dent in them.

Except for the luxury of saying "neener neener boo boo, I told you so," nothing is important other than what should be done now to affect the future.