War Supporters - How many U.S. casualties would make you change your mind?

[AgPete]

I don't think many people here thought we would have less than one hundred casualties. After all, we are invading one of the largest cities in the world, but I'm curious if this war starts to get really ugly, how many U.S. casualties would it take before you start to question this war? Or would you support this war even if it became another Vietnam?

[rexalllsc]

IMO, either you support the cause or you dont

[MrBug708]

How many treaties have the Iraqi's broken? Geneva convention was broken today

[GoldenEagle]

Intersting poll. I voted No amount of casualities. But I do think they will play an important role.

[MrBug708]

Let me clarify

A group of Iraqi's claimed to be soldiers surrendering. When a group of US troops came up to them, they opened fire killing 9.

[Superman=#54]

I highly doubt this war will become a vietnam. You should expect causualties in war. In all wars there are always some. Sometimes it gets out of hand like Vietnam. Overall this war looks well planned out and I expect the U.S. and the Brits to be in Baghdad by Friday of next week.

I also think that the U.S. was caught off guard and expected most soldiers to lay down and play dead which was a mistake. It might be a new concept to the American Generals but soldiers wearing civillian clothes is quite common when your out numbered and out gunned. Its called guerilla warfare wouldn't you do it if someone tried to take over your country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No amount of casualties would deter me from what I believe is right and just.

Although I admit that I wish the command structure would quit worrying quite so much about the p.r. battle and do whatever is necessary to minimize Coalition casualties.

[Craptacular]

I think the biggest mistake the U.S made so far was allowing the Iraqi's to regroup during the surrender "negotiations." Our leaders basically said they would they wouldn't use any half-ass solutions. I'm still waiting for that full, big, ugly ass to show up.

[sabotai]

I voted no amount of casualties, only because I don't think it will be that many. But even if it is, all of the soldiers in the armed forces know their duty and do it willingly. And as long as they will fight, I will support them.

I don't think I've made my stance on this war war known. I stayed out of the debates. I know I said I was against it in another thread, but that was before it started (or maybe the day it started, or day 2, I frankly can't remember.) SO just the clarify, I have always been in support of any action to take out Saddam. Just looking at his record should make it clear why. I never bought the terrorist angle that the Bush Administration put forward. I just don't think that having Saddam there or not increase or decreases our threat of terrorism or the access to weapons for terrorsts. I also did not support the disarmment (sp?) of Saddam. Of course I don't think he should have them, but I wasn't convinced that UN Inspecters couldn't do their job. (How much time did we give them? I hardly think it was enough).

But on the question of if Saddam is in power or not, I support the action to get him out of there. If this war had been protrayed as a war to get rid of Saddam by any means from the start, I would have supported it. The fact is, it wasn't. It was presented as a war to disarm him to protect against terrorism, and I just never thought that was a good reason.

Don't mean to thread jack, just thought my statement might throw some people off. :) Since the goal of this war has basically gone to getting rid of Saddam and his regime, I support the war now. And I support the soldiers as long as they are willing to fight.