500 dead Americans in Irag. Why?

[Psychoblues]

I watched his capture and examination on TV. Over and over again. I didn't see a man that should be so feared that WE AMERICANS should sacrifice 500 LIVES to topple. And I didn't see any reason why thousands of innocent Iraqis should be struck dead at our hands to insure it. Can you imagine GWB being dragged from such a bunker and what that might mean concerning his support and righteousness among the masses?

Saddam had little overall Iragi support. Couldn't the most technologically advanced intelligence/military on earth have captured this obvious coward without the sacrifice of so many innocent lives?

 

[Annie]

Hmm, you would propose what? Not just you and I don't mean any disrespect, but it seems the 'less than conservative' crowd keeps posting challenges of one sort or another. IF no one has an answer that 'satisfies' the person asking, the administration is/was wrong. Something strikes me as off kilter with this game. I for one am only going to play when I want. IF that makes the challengers feel like they've 'won' a round, so be it.

 

[Bern80]

In a hole in the ground in the country the size of california? probably not.

Boy you liberals make it sound so easy. "All we gotta do is just go get em right?" WRONG It's a bit more complicated then that.

 

[wonderwench]

Liberty comes with a very dear price.

The alternative is worse.

 

[RightyRightOn]

500 to liberate a nation of millions. Not to mention the saftey of some 250 million Americans as well as the rest of the world. Sounds like an astonishing and historical victory to me.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by RightyRightOn
500 to liberate a nation of millions. Not to mention the saftey of some 250 million Americans as well as the rest of the world. Sounds like an astonishing and historical victory to me.

It does sound like a small price to pay when you put it that way. I think many Americans are laboring under the delusion that our technology should now or in the near future allow us to wage antiseptic war. I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[wonderwench]

I hope we never can wage an antiseptic war. A nuclear bomb is the closest thing we have experienced in terms of destroying life without risk to our own. The fact that lives are put at risk is a huge pressure valve to keep violence in check.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The fact that lives are put at risk is a huge pressure valve to keep violence in check.

Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everybody. Case in point is Bin Laden, Hezbollah, or the Chechnyan group.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I hope we never can wage an antiseptic war. A nuclear bomb is the closest thing we have experienced in terms of destroying life without risk to our own. The fact that lives are put at risk is a huge pressure valve to keep violence in check.

Well, one could argue that missles fired from a ship hundreds of miles away or bombs dropped from thousands of feet in the air afford us the same advantage. The fact remains, though, that most of the oppostion in any war is at ground level, which requires committing troops to risk their lives. I totally agree that war should never be as easy as playing a video game. If that was to happen, the people pushing the buttons could pretend to themselves that they're not really killing human beings. Having thus cleared their conscience, there would be absolutely no check on the massive slaughter that would ensue.

 

[wonderwench]

Orson Scott Card wrote an incredibly interesting book on that topic, Enders Game.

Essentially, war is fought by children who think they are playing a game - because what they are doing is to hideous for an aware adult to handle.

An excellent read.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Orson Scott Card wrote an incredibly interesting book on that topic, Enders Game.

Essentially, war is fought by children who think they are playing a game - because what they are doing is to hideous for an aware adult to handle.

An excellent read.

Card's philosophy sounds similar to mine. I've long thought that no mature, reasoning persons would resort to violence to settle their differences. A lot of the disagreements our leaders create among themselves stem from their inability to refrain from projecting their own shadows onto others, or from an egoistic refusal to be swayed from their respective ideological dogmas and try to cooperate. A truly mature person has seen through these simple psychological mechanisms and worked his way past them.

 

[Zhukov]

Question: Why have 500 American soldiers died in Iraq?

Answer: To remove Saddam Hussein from power,to liberate Iraq, to search for and remove the WMD believed to be there, and to establish a democracy in the heart of Islam.


Question: Why did 1,293 die in 1992? or 1,213 in '93, or 1,075 in '94, or 1,040 in '95, or 974 in '96, or 817 in '97, or in 826 in '98, or 795 in '99, or 774 in '00?

Answer: Mostly due to accidents.


Just trying to put things into context.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Question: Why have 500 Americans died in Iraq?

Answer: To remove Saddam Hussein from power,to liberate Iraq, to search for and remove the WMD believed to be there, and to establish a democracy in the heart of Islam.


Question: Why did 1,293 die in 1992? or 1,213 in '93, or 1,075 in '94, or 1,040 in '95, or 974 in '96, or 817 in '97, or in 826 in '98, or 795 in '99, or 774 in '00?

Answer: Mostly due to accidents.


Just trying to put things into context.

Thanks for that bit of perspective, Zhurkov, and welcome aboard!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Zhukov

I didn't realize that that many died in those years. BTW, where can you find information like that anyway?

 

[Zhukov]

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf