A few dead is unacceptable? How do you figure what is an acceptable level of deaths in this type of situation? I certainly don't know the equation of what would be acceptable losses in this type of conflict. The issue should not be the loss of life, but whether or not we are taking the most correct course of action at this point. If we are truly taking the high road, lives will undoubtedly be lost in the process...this is not a new concept of people who are willing to give their lives in defense of our national interests, be they a policeman, a fireman, or any other person who risks their life in their job. I think it does a disservice to their lives and their memory if we summarily dismiss their efforts in a military situation simply because we don't like the war. Their lives should not be used as political pawns in an ideological agenda...from either side.
In terms of relative death toll the Iraq conflict is still probably well within reasonable limits. Certainly a more balanced war would have caused far greater casualties. The problem is, what do we (you Americans) get out of a continued presence in Iraq? What is the bottom line? In Vietnam you could pretend you were fighting for democracy and the American way of life. Where is the light at the end of this tunnel? No matter how many Americans get killed, America's public image has taken a BAD beating, and at the end of the day there will be no WMD. A good friend of mine is a medic in Iraq. I applaud his willingness to serve his country (he joined up after an impending war became public knowledge), but I'd hate to see him get hurt for no discernable purpose. How many lives is Bush's pride worth?
To answer your questions: 1. The bottom line is that the Bathists murdered parents in the street and held the children in prisons. Reports are that the bathists sometimes granted sadists access to the children before they were killed, or were made to kill each other. Some atrocities are simply unspeakable. There is my bottom line. You apparently don't have one. 2. Coalition troops are the light at the end of the tunnel, and at the end of every street corner in Baghdad. Why? Because all of the Iraqi patriots, the Paul Reveres of Iraqi, with their families, have already been murdered and buried. 3. 'Public image' - patriots really don't care what cowards and excusenics think. We'll humor you from time to time, but that is about it. Sure you find that frustrating - tough s**t. 4. 'No discernable purpose' - sad, pal. BTW - How is the weather in Paris these days? Kindly tell us Americans - 'cause none of us have visited lately so we wouldn't know. Now that I think about it, we don't really care what your weather is like. Nevermind.
Very well said, my friend. You are among the minority of U.S. citizens who still deserves the name "American". I fear my country is becoming a nation of spineless appeasers... fat, happy self-involved nimrods who don't believe that liberty (or anything else) is worth fighting for. They forget (and betray) the very principles on which this great nation was founded.
I must say I'm disturbed by your lack of a mature response. I think it was clear from my post that I was in no way attacking Americans - simply one administration's decision to pursue a difficult course of action. Do the benefits out way potential gains? Judging by the # of Americans being slaughtered these days I'd say "no." Do you feel better now that you've reduced yourself to name calling? The questions I posed were pretty simple ones that someone who wholeheartedly agrees with Bush's foreign policy should be able to answer in a way that enlightens the rest of us poor heathens. Instead, by resorting to name calling you undermine your credibility and by association, the strength of your logic. From your rant I think your main point was that Saddam was a really bad guy and the States saved Iraq. To that I totally agree. Unfortunately Bush's stated mandate was never to save the Iraqi's from themselves, it was to find WMD and a possible link between Iraq and 9/11. In both areas the war has been an abject failure. If the main point of the war had been to oust Saddam or to protect Iraqi's from their leader then I would say that the U.S. has done a fine job. The question is, where does the U.S. go from here? Having failed at the primary goals of the invasion, Bush needs to salvage some dignity. He can't simply leave the country a mess since nothing will have been accomplished and Iraq won't be appreciably better than before the U.S. arrived. So U.S. soldiers need to stay in Iraq until things get better - which won't happen because Iraqi's don't want the Americans in their country (can't blame them). So to sum up, U.S. soldiers need to stay in a country where they aren't wanted to do a virtually impossible task and where they are at risk of dying. The pay off is that Bush doesn't look as bad as he otherwise might. Sound about right?
The REAL bottom line is this: America was frustrated by its failed efforts to combat Al-Qaeda and make Bin Laden pay for 9-11, so the Bush Administration created a phantom threat in Saddam Hussein. He's an Arab and he's bad so he's the next best thing to Bin Laden. Bush claimed war against Iraq was necessary because Saddam was a "uniquely evil" dictator who had gassed his own people. North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il, with his alarming bouffant hairdo, pot belly, and weird, khaki jumpsuits, looks and acts like an alien from outer space. His Stalinist regime, with whom Bush wants to negotiate, has just allowed two million of its citizens to starve to death in order to amply feed and supply the Communist party and the military, and conduct secret nuclear and missile programs. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are in prison camps. North Korea has kidnapped Japanese citizens, bombed civilian airliners and committed many other acts of aggression and terrorism. Iraq's atrocities are nothing compared to these. As for Saddam gassing his own people - meaning Kurdish rebels during the Iran-Iraq war - Bush's outrage is brazen hypocrisy. The U.S. and Britain supplied Iraq with its chemical and biological weapons, financed Saddam's aggression against Iran and made no protests when Saddam used such weapons. Why did Bush choose to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator while pussyfooting around North Korea? Because North Korea has no oil and is not the target of powerful U.S. domestic lobbies. Can you see the double standard? Better to create a straw bogeyman in Baghdad, reckons George Bush, and then triumphantly knock it down, than to tangle with those scary North Koreans. North Korea has a tough, million-man army that has considerable defensive power in spite of obsolete equipment. They have repeatedly threatened to "burn" Seoul and its seven million inhabitants, as well as the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division on the DMZ, with chemical and perhaps biological weapons. In 1993, the Pentagon estimated that a full-scale war with North Korea would cost U.S. forces 250,000 casualties. The pentagon believed that the Iraqi war could be completed in 30 days with modest casualties. Plus, it would improve Dubya's popularity by showing that he's a man of action who's avenging 9-11 and combating terror, while ridding the world of evil dictators. But in post-war Iraq, the administration has bitten off more than they could chew. Granted, the Iraqi people are much better off now than they were under Saddam. Improvements to their standard of living are being made every day, but the liberal media just glosses over them or ignores them altogether. Regardless of these benefits, the premise behind invading Iraq was faulty. No, I don't live in France. I'm a proud American and a free-thinking Republican who just doesn't agree with everything the Bush administration does. I believe the truth should be revealed.
I'm not 100% behind the whole Iraq war, but I can understand what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish (Beyond the family vendetta against Saddam, and grabbing oil.) The idea is to reform the entire Arab world by establishing pillars of freedom and Democracy in Iraq and Afghanstan, and from there, the theory goes, freedom and prospererity will sweep across all Arab lands. Yeah, I know it's not going too well at this stage, but I can see what they're trying to do. Can anyone else explain this concept a bit better? This may help: http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml
What makes you think the Saudi Royal family is going to favor democracy over what they currently have going on? Let's face it, if we could establish a dictator or monarchy in Iraq who was pro-America and would keep the price of oil and flow of oil stable...would Americans really care?
"Nation building" ? Terror-breeder-in-Chief should be Bushs middle name. quote "Chaos lurks in an abandoned land Al-Qaeda and the roots of terror: The West vowed to end poverty, but little has changed for Afghanistan's people - and this great failing could breed fresh trouble Jason Burke Sunday September 8, 2002 The Observer unquote continued: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,788012,00.html quote "Afghans on Edge of Chaos As opium production and banditry soar, the country is at risk of anarchy, some warn, and could allow a Taliban resurgence By Robyn Dixon The Los Angeles Times Monday 04 August 2003" continued: unquote http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080503A.shtml quote "Afghanistan's slide towards chaos By Crispin Thorold BBC correspondent in Kabul The eruption of violence in northern Afghanistan is a graphic reminder of the challenges facing the Afghan interim administration and the international community. In the south and east, remnants of the Taleban launch almost daily attacks, many in rural areas. Drug production creates "ambient insecurity" across the country. Regional militias, which control opium-producing areas, charge a "poppy tax". " unquote continued: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3179474.stm quote "Posted on Thu, Aug. 14, 2003 Afghanistan slipping into chaos, warn aid agencies BY ROBYN DIXON Los Angeles Times Service WARDAK, Afghanistan - With the slow buildup of a national Afghan army, an inadequate U.S. and coalition presence and poor progress on reconstruction projects, Afghanistan is spiraling out of control and risks becoming a ''narco-mafia'' state, some humanitarian agencies warn. Already the signs are there -- a boom in opium production, rampant banditry, huge areas unsafe for aid workers, and a government with little power over regional warlords and Taliban remnants. On Wednesday, a suspected Taliban bomb blew apart a bus in the southern province of Helmand, killing at least 15 people, including a woman and six children. Also, 21 fighters were killed in Khost province near the Pakistani border, two students died making a homemade bomb and 20 men were killed in a feud in southern Uruzgan province, bringing the death toll for the day to 58, one of Afghanistan's bloodiest days in a year, according to The Associated Press. If the country slips into anarchy, it risks becoming a haven for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. And the point of U.S. military action here could be lost -- a major setback in the war against terrorism. $900 MILLION Money spent on the war may end up being wasted, and dragging the country back from chaos could be even more costly." unquote continued: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/6527601.htm etc.