Iraq: Has the inevitable Civil War begun?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yet, in spite of all that isolationism, Pearl Harbor still happened....

The US was not really all that isolationist in the 1st half of the 20th century--the expansion/quest for supremacy in the Pacific and the annexation of colonies after the Spanish-American war are not the actions of an isolationist government...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

While I don't think Clinton was to blame for all of that, I don't see how anyone could state (with the benefit of hindsight) that the US was "safe" from terror during the late 90s.

The same way you're saying we are now.

It's not about being above anything - it's about not being stupid. For every treaty with dictator that worked out well for the US with no use of force I can name about 10 that didn't. What we did with North Korea in the late 90s was stupid - and there are many that want us to make that exact same mistake again.

Maybe if our military wasn't fighting under false pretenses in Iraq we'd have a little bit more might @ the bargaining table (w/ NK), huh?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well hell, why even collect taxes if the money is good for nothing?

I would much rather err on that said than they one we've been heading towards over the past 5-10 years.

So your argument is, "Except for the thousands of soldiers that are killed and wounded, US citizens are safe". You know, except for the crime victims, NY City residents are 100% safe from crime!

Soldiers aren't drafted, they sign up and know the risks. A better analogy would be if no citizens died in NY but 50 cops did. Would it be tragic? Sure, you don't want to see cops die. But that's their job - to be in the line of fire so citizens don't have to be.

There were a couple thousand deaths from terrorism in the US in the decades before the war, and a couple thousand American deaths after the war, so it's hard to say that the war made Americans safer.

It's always hard to tell when America is "safe from Terror". All you can do is look at attacks on non-military interests and the state of the enemy that may be doing the attacking. And, I can't remember a time in the last decade when the US has had fewer attacks on its non-combat interests and a weaker terrorism opponent that the current Al Qaeda crew. And that's about the best you are going to get in today's world.

Invading a country that could not attack us and wasn't aiding those that wanted to attack us does not make us safer. Iraq was not about national security.

What was it about then? Oil? Haliburton? Bush being bored? For all these people that think Iraq wasn't about national security, I would really be interested to hear why people like Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Daschle, Gore and Joe Biden favored military action from 98-02 if it wasn't about national security.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Maybe if our military wasn't fighting under false pretenses in Iraq we'd have a little bit more might @ the bargaining table (w/ NK), huh?

Like we had in the mid 90s under Clinton?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

So what do you think it is, then?

There are many factors, not the least of which is that many people in those countries grow up in poverty with very little opportunity. The look for something, anything, to do with their lives and wind up falling into the terrorist ranks. Democracy should, in theory, improve that situation.

Another is that many devout Muslims believe that their faith instructs them to defend their home land against invaders (passive jihad), and others even believe it is their duty to seek out and destroy infidels (active jihad). The latter group is far less common than the first, despite what you hear from the talking heads. The current war should, in theory, make this situation worse.

But a far bigger factor is that many in the middle east believe, and with good reason, that the US is only out for itself, acts only in its own best interests, and doesn't give a damn about them or their lives. They further believe, with good reason, that the US pays lip service to concepts like freedom and justice but won't lift a finger to help them when it's needed. The US talked a good game about democracy in the 1990s, then stood aside while the GIA massacred tens of thousands in Algeria. The US encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in the first gulf war, then stopped short of Baghdad and left the insurgents to be slaughtered.

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

The US was not really all that isolationist in the 1st half of the 20th century--the expansion/quest for supremacy in the Pacific and the annexation of colonies after the Spanish-American war are not the actions of an isolationist government...

I think that's kind of the point. In today's culture (and even that of the early 20th century), there's too much world knowledge available for a major super-power like the US to be "isolationist". It's comparable to the US intelligence agencies in the 1800s (ie, Marshalls) and them today. In the 1800s, rail barrons and outlaws could roam the west without a great fear of being caught. You can't kidnap a kid in Montana and flee to Idaho today and not risk federal involvement.

Just look at the world pressure on the US to step in with the Sudan. You think if we didn't enter Iraq that there would be no pressure from the world to help Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, Rwanda, ... The moment the US enters any of those countries they could create a new group of terrorists - it's a losing battle to think that the US can avoid pissing off certain groups in today's world.

[Anthony]

they don't even want to defend themselves. participation in the Iraqi Army is pitiful. how is this going to get better if they can't even organize a decent Army and a way to police themselves? waste of time, waste of (American) lives.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

Like we had in the mid 90s under Clinton?

You won't find me defending Bill Clinton in regards to this.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

...

When will people realize that acts like this are what caused 9/11. ....

My first Reaction to this statement. You are a moron.

After some thought I decided to leave that there, while I continued with more.

I do agree with you to a degree, it wasn't "our Freedom" anymore than it was our fault. That was your point right? It was our fault.

These guys are evil men in the business of terror and murder. Terror and murder makes them powerful. They need enemies, and the U.S. is a great target to declare your hatred upon. We are bigger and more prevalent than the zionists, but we are allied with the zionists. That relationship just increases the ability of these people to use religion to misguide their "disciples".

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

That's the best point rex of sc et al don't take to heart.

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them. And even that, you can't go back and say, "well it's obvious Blair and Bush and Powell and pretty much the rest of the world SHOULD have known that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs!" It's an absurd position to take, given everything we know now. Were they wrong about the existence of WMD's? Probably. Was it stupid for them to believe what they did? I can't see how.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's the best point rex of sc et al don't take to heart.

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them. And even that, you can't go back and say, "well it's obvious Blair and Bush and Powell and pretty much the rest of the world SHOULD have known that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs!" It's an absurd position to take, given everything we know now. Were they wrong about the existence of WMD's? Probably. Was it stupid for them to believe what they did? I can't see how.

Exactly and somehow the view the Iraq brought this upon THEMSELVES is never even considered.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them.

I don't agree with that. A major justification for the war with Iraq was the War on Terror. I believed then and continue to believe that the Iraq war did nothing more than divert our primary military focus away from the war on terror and into nation building in an unrelated Middle Eastern country. I believe there were polls that came out before the presidential election showing that people voting for Bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous, while people voting against bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror have nothing to do with each other.

Saddam was a bad guy, terrible things were going on in Iraq, its a good thing Saddam is gone. I hope democracy succeeds there. But, in my mind, all of our reasons for going to war with Iraq were flawed. Add on the fact that we had near unanimous world support and an amazingly strong, united atmosphere with all of the powers of the world going into Afghanastan and going to "get" Osama, and we threw away all that goodwill in a matter of months going into Iraq.

Its not as simple as WMDs.

And my apologies for where this post will take the thread... I probably just ruined any other discussion that was occuring here, my bad.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Radii

Add on the fact that we had near unanimous world support and an amazingly strong, united atmosphere with all of the powers of the world going into Afghanastan and going to "get" Osama, and we threw away all that goodwill in a matter of months going into Iraq.

Well, 21 different countries sent troops to invade Iraq, but never mind that...

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Arles

The worst thing for Al Qaeda to do right now is reinspire American resolve.

That is an excellent point that I had not really thought about.

I have my doubts about how the rest of the world would react if something else started happening within the US borders, and the type of reaction you predict scares me quite a bit. The reason I love the USA is that we seem to remain above the scum of the world. We can react, with mighty force, to those that hurt us, but I cannot begin to describe the personal struggle i would go through if the scenario you describe came to pass. I'm mainly talking about a world where we openly use torture and, as you put it, "Forget Geneva." I think you're right, and that's what scares me. That's not a USA I want to live in.

Additionally, the other thing everyone mentions right away is the use of the Patriot act and the deportation of middle easterners. And what I don't think others have mentioned is another big step towards an Orwellian society. Additional monitering, additional security, more power for the police and less penalties for abuse of that power... all in all a much scarier society to live in IMO. I understand, it'd be a different world, and it wouldn't be our fault, but I think that terrorists could force our hands in many different ways by scaring the shit out of our citizens within our borders and could forever change the freedom we currently have in the US, in a very negative way.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Radii

I don't agree with that. A major justification for the war with Iraq was the War on Terror. I believed then and continue to believe that the Iraq war did nothing more than divert our primary military focus away from the war on terror and into nation building in an unrelated Middle Eastern country. I believe there were polls that came out before the presidential election showing that people voting for Bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous, while people voting against bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror have nothing to do with each other.

The fact of the matter is that WMDs was a small part of the reason for going to war with Iraq. But Bush et al made a decision to choose that as their justification to the public -- they probably figured it would be an easier sound-bite to sell than the more important (but more complex) factors.

So while it's not really accurate to trot out the "false pretenses" line, it doesn't really bother me to see Bush pay the penalty for it. He made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My first Reaction to this statement. You are a moron.

After some thought I decided to leave that there, while I continued with more.

I do agree with you to a degree, it wasn't "our Freedom" anymore than it was our fault. That was your point right? It was our fault.

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?

These guys are evil men in the business of terror and murder. Terror and murder makes them powerful.

The same can be said of our government.

That relationship just increases the ability of these people to use religion to misguide their "disciples".

Same can be said of Bush.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

There are many factors, not the least of which is that many people in those countries grow up in poverty with very little opportunity. The look for something, anything, to do with their lives and wind up falling into the terrorist ranks. Democracy should, in theory, improve that situation.

Another is that many devout Muslims believe that their faith instructs them to defend their home land against invaders (passive jihad), and others even believe it is their duty to seek out and destroy infidels (active jihad). The latter group is far less common than the first, despite what you hear from the talking heads. The current war should, in theory, make this situation worse.

But a far bigger factor is that many in the middle east believe, and with good reason, that the US is only out for itself, acts only in its own best interests, and doesn't give a damn about them or their lives. They further believe, with good reason, that the US pays lip service to concepts like freedom and justice but won't lift a finger to help them when it's needed. The US talked a good game about democracy in the 1990s, then stood aside while the GIA massacred tens of thousands in Algeria. The US encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in the first gulf war, then stopped short of Baghdad and left the insurgents to be slaughtered.

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

You're right, the line I gave was too simplistic. I agree with nearly all of your post...I'll write more later.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, 21 different countries sent troops to invade Iraq, but never mind that...

This is true, but the public support for the US took a noted and drastic swing. Many of those countries supported the US without the support of their own people.

A number of those countries have since pulled all of their troops out, most notably Spain, Portugal, The Philippines, and the Central American countries that were there. The Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland and Italy have committed to pulling their troops out in 2005 as well. The numbers I'm looking at leave South Korea and the UK as our only serious allies still with us here.

Haven't a few of those countries leader's lost power as a result of their support of the US? Spain being the big one? Tony Blair remained in power but took signifigant hits in Parliament despite a booming economy credited mainly to his party.. at least that's my very very high level understanding.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Exactly and somehow the view the Iraq brought this upon THEMSELVES is never even considered.

Iraq or Saddam?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

He made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

and others get to die/have died for it. nice.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?



The same can be said of our government.

That is an outrageous and ignorant statement, as pathetic as the bumper stickers I've seen saying 'Bush is worse than the Taliban'.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Iraq or Saddam?

well gee, wasn't Saddam in charge over there?

I mean what's your point here? America is evil and sucks? Fine.

I prefer to have more faith in my fellow countrymen.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

and others get to die/have died for it. nice.

I think Maple Leaf is saying that the war has/had justifiable reasons outside of WMD - thereby making it the right decision. His point is that Bush just happened to choose WMD as the main factor to pitch the public and is therefore paying more of a political price for it than if he would have focused more on the whole of Iraq's actions. I think this is a fair point, especially towards the end (in the start, all reasons were referenced). Had Bush been less transfixed on WMD then I think the fair-minded people might be more apt to support the war effort than some may be right now. Not that it would have mattered to the partisans, but I think it is a good point for the others.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Do you want to compare WWI deaths to WWII deaths?

Sure. There's no question that from the United States perspective, WWII cost more. I'm not sure what you're tyring to say. Are you saying that casualties decrease over time? That 1,000 casualties in the first year of Iraq (give or take) are roughly equal to say 14,000 KIA in 1968? Or are you throwing in WWI because our enemies got better at killing us between 1918 and 1941? So the casualty rate should naturally increase? Or is there some other point that you're making that I'm not getting? Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.

US Battle Deaths:

WWI: 53,402

WWII: 291,557

Korea: 33,741

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Arles

Had Bush been less transfixed on WMD then I think the fair-minded people might be more apt to support the war effort than some may be right now. Not that it would have mattered to the partisans, but I think it is a good point for the others.

I think this is very possibly true for me personally and for many others in the middle, yes. But, as I stated above, my problems with the war went beyond the WMD fixation so I may well have ended up opposed anyway. But as a result I continue to think of the iraq war as a whole as a signifigant failure of the Bush administration, no matter what the end result turns out to be, to the point that I don't think I could ever vote for anyone in his cabinet for anything, pretty much ever.

I continue to look for things to get behind him on, social security and the tax code overhaul being things I really want to like... but so far I'm disillusioned with how the 2nd term is starting out as well.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?



The same can be said of our government.



Same can be said of Bush.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Yes you are right. We brought this all upon ourselves. If we hadn't done anything internationally over the past fifteen years the like of Al Qaeda would have just shriveled up and gone away. They wouldn't have manufactured some reason to hate or target the United States even if we hadn't gone to war several times to aid muslim people(Kuwait, The Balkans, Kosovo, Somalia).

You're also correct that our government is just as evil as those who plotted to fly hijacked planes carrying hundreds of people into buildings holding thousands of innocents. George Bush is just as evil as the bastard who convinced a desperate individual to walk into a Pizza parlor and kill dozens of innocent men women and children.

And yes some out of context quote by our President is tantamount to marshalling our impoverished, voiceless, and hopeless masses to rise up in a righteous furor and smite our enemies.


An nevermind. What am I thinking. You're just a moron.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You're also correct that our government is just as evil as those who plotted to fly hijacked planes carrying hundreds of people into buildings holding thousands of innocents. George Bush is just as evil as the bastard who convinced a desperate individual to walk into a Pizza parlor and kill dozens of innocent men women and children.

What's the difference between dropping a bomb on civilians and flying a plane into a building of civilians?

And yes some out of context quote by our President is tantamount to marshalling our impoverished, voiceless, and hopeless masses to rise up in a righteous furor and smite our enemies.

How is that quote out of context?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Sure. There's no question that from the United States perspective, WWII cost more. I'm not sure what you're tyring to say. Are you saying that casualties decrease over time? That 1,000 casualties in the first year of Iraq (give or take) are roughly equal to say 14,000 KIA in 1968? Or are you throwing in WWI because our enemies got better at killing us between 1918 and 1941? So the casualty rate should naturally increase? Or is there some other point that you're making that I'm not getting? Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.

US Battle Deaths:

WWI: 53,402

WWII: 291,557

Korea: 33,741

It's as bad in Vietnam in that the soldiers will begin to (and are) questioning why they're there in large numbers, and we'll stay with no end in sight.

As far as the numbers, war has come a long way technologically so you won't see WWII #s or even Vietnam numbers of out of this conflict.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.

As far as the Vietnam - Iraq comparison goes, as with everything else, you can cite any statistic to support any point. For example, early in the thread in a criticism of the "Iraq is worse than Vietnam" argument, you cited yearly battle deaths. Someone else could argue that if you equalize the number of combat troops on the ground (there were 3x as many in Vietnam), look at casualty rates and/or adjust for the percentage of non-lethal casualties that would have been lethal in Vietnam--statistically, if you look at casualty rate per 100 combat soldiers, it would be more of a dead heat.

In the end, I would agree with one of your points--it is difficult to make quantitative comparisons from war to war, and on top of that, it is difficult to make it meaningful, since inherently there is too much variation as to cause, operation, etc. from war to war.

[Arles]

IMO, you lose the comparison to Vietnam based on the fact there was no draft. No one is in Iraq that didn't sign up and join the military on their own free will. That is the biggest difference and the main reason why Vietnam comparisons don't hold up.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, you lose the comparison to Vietnam based on the fact there was no draft. No one is in Iraq that didn't sign up and join the military on their own free will. That is the biggest difference and the main reason why Vietnam comparisons don't hold up.

This is true. However, do you think the soldiers' morale will remain high? That's what I'm getting at.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What's the difference between dropping a bomb on civilians and flying a plane into a building of civilians?

Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

How is that quote out of context?

It is a single sentence taken out of a larger body of statements. It is being used to singularly characterize a position or opinion, when it doesn't adequately do so on its own.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.

The terrorists intent was to further a political goal. America's intent was to further a political goal. Both goals required the deaths of thousands of people in order to be fulfilled.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The terrorists intent was to further a political goal.

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.

Doesn't really matter to me if they're primarily targeted or not. What would you say if your child lost his/her legs in a terrorist attack, assuming the terrorist was attempting to blow up the Pentagon (a military target)?

It is a single sentence taken out of a larger body of statements. It is being used to singularly characterize a position or opinion, when it doesn't adequately do so on its own.

It certainly does, unless you're arguing that god hasn't been an ongoing theme for Bush?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.

I think it's completely legitimate. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it's not.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Doesn't really matter to me if they're primarily targeted or not.

Another idiotic statement; do you realize how dumb this comparison makes you sound?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I think it's completely legitimate. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it's not.

Mass murder of innocent civilians, including children is legitimate? I am going to assume that you are playing devil's advocate here. Or else you've clearly been reading way too much by that MIT loon.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.

I never called it a legitimate political tool, I condemn their actions as much as our actions in the Iraq war. Just because someone is anti-Bush doesn't make them pro-terrorists. I am anti-both.

You imply though that wars of aggression started on, at best, nebulous terms are a legitimate political tool, and I wonder why you think that is.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I never called it a legitimate political tool, I condemn their actions as much as our actions in the Iraq war. Just because someone is anti-Bush doesn't make them pro-terrorists. I am anti-both.

You imply though that wars of aggression started on, at best, nebulous terms are a legitimate political tool, and I wonder why you think that is.

My point is that while there is reasoned debate about whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea, the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 are universally condemned by everybody, and has only brought pain and suffering on it's perpetrators. Equating the two is crazier than 9 Paris Hiltons, and probably intellectually dishonest, in that it twists things around to prove a point (Bush is bad).

I see these bumper stickers in town that say stuff like "Bush is worse than the Taliban", and I wonder how anybody can take you seriously if you say stuff like that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Another idiotic statement; do you realize how dumb this comparison makes you sound?

I don't think you are thinking it through enough. Consider two actions, one results in the death of 3,000 civilians and the other results in the deaths of 100,000 civilians. On that alone, the later would be morally worse. Now, assume that in the latter that those deaths were just collateral damage that was known to happen based on the eliminatio of other targets. Does that tip the moral scale the other way? I would say no.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't think you are thinking it through enough. Consider two actions, one results in the death of 3,000 civilians and the other results in the deaths of 100,000 civilians. On that alone, the later would be morally worse. Now, assume that in the latter that those deaths were just collateral damage that was known to happen based on the eliminatio of other targets. Does that tip the moral scale the other way? I would say no.

Well I have no idea what you're talking about now, because that's a very vague hypothetical.

First of all, there *is* a moral difference between what happens in war and what al-qaeda did on 9/11. Quakers and John Lennon may disagree, but pretty much everybody else would concede that point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

This is true. However, do you think the soldiers' morale will remain high? That's what I'm getting at.

Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not. Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

In Vietnam and WWII, US soldiers were constantly trying to capture assets and land - often fighting on the enemy's home turf. Imagine two scenerios:

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

First of all, there *is* a moral difference between what happens in war and what al-qaeda did on 9/11. Quakers and John Lennon may disagree, but pretty much everybody else would concede that point.

What's the difference?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not. Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

In Vietnam and WWII, US soldiers were constantly trying to capture assets and land - often fighting on the enemy's home turf. Imagine two scenerios:

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.

Also keep in mind that soldiers are paid/treated much better than during the Vietnam era. Being a soldier in Vietnam was incredibly awful in certain circumstances; it's not even close to the same thing now.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The terrorists intent was to further a political goal. America's intent was to further a political goal. Both goals required the deaths of thousands of people in order to be fulfilled.

The last sentence is over the top, but you are quite correct in that both war and terrorism are tools used in service of achieving political ends. Nothing more, nothing less.

One can take issue with the legitimacy of either war or terrorism, but that does not preclude their use as policy tools by governments and/or political groups with the means and need to use them.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not.

Wow. Since they enlisted after 9/11, you think they're comfortable with being sent to Iraq? That's a stretch.

Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

Yes, things seem to be going great, huh?

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.

I guess we'll see over the next few years, huh? I happen to think that 400 killed (whether they were soldiers or not) in the last 2 weeks is a pretty big deal and pretty chilling at this stage of the game.

I know a guy who got back from where a little while back who describe things like that at all (the sitting around thing).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Wow. Since they enlisted after 9/11, you think they're comfortable with being sent to Iraq? That's a stretch.

You think people enlisted after 9-11 thinking they were not going to enter some form of battle/warfare?

Yes, things seem to be going great, huh?

They seem to be going as expected by most rational people with an understanding of the history of warfare. No country of Iraq's size has ever been involved in a military-led regime change and had a new, working government in fewer than 5 years. Some of the expectations for this Iraq effort draw parallels to the "Mythical Man Month". If it takes 9 months to have a baby, you can't get together 9 pregnant women and have a baby in one month. There are certain things that need to happen and be legitimized/bought into by the population before we can advance to the next stage. This takes patience and is not something that we can speed up by throwing in more troops or changing overall tactics. Over the next few years, things will change and Iraq will eventually take over control of its own destiny without the need for the large US presence. But, in the interim, no amount of huffing and puffing (or gather more pregnant women) will change the time this takes.

I guess we'll see over the next few years, huh? I happen to think that 400 killed (whether they were soldiers or not) is a pretty big deal and pretty chilling at this stage of the game.

I have a feeling you happen to think any action that shows any sort of instability in Iraq is a huge deal, while disregarding all prior historical context in the process. You will continue to be "chilled" and "defeatest" all the way to end of our time there. And, that's your right, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit when historical precedence shows that we are doing as well as can be expected given the difficult task at hand.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What's the difference?

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

There have been times in history when war has been waged like that, but there is no way that our invasion of Iraq (which was waged with diplomacy and with careful pains taken to reduce non-combatant casualty rates) matches up morally with the taking out of the twin towers. It's ludicrous to suggest it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

You think people enlisted after 9-11 thinking they were not going to enter some form of battle/warfare?

There was a high probability that there would be some fighting. Does that mean that any fighting is "ok" and that they'll be excited for all fighting?

I have a feeling you happen to think any action that shows any sort of instability in Iraq is a huge deal, while disregarding all prior historical context in the process. You will continue to be "chilled" and "defeatest" all the way to end of our time there. And, that's your right, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit when historical precedence shows that we are doing as well as can be expected given the difficult task at hand.

You're probably right. I have a feeling that no matter when we leave there are going to be serious problems there.