How many deaths will it take?

[© tweed]

How Many Deaths Will It Take?
By Bob Herbert

[A18]

In order to equal the number of deaths in Vietnam, the war would have to continue for roughly 60 years.

[© tweed]

In order to equal the number of deaths in Vietnam, the war would have to continue for roughly 60 years.

So that makes it right?

[A18]

It's right, but that's not what makes it right.

This guy's comparing it to Vietnam, when the truth is, this is the most successful war in our nation's history from an objective standpoint.

[© tweed]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

[Felix]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

[© tweed]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

[David S]

The U.S. military hammered the daylights out of the Iraqi military, occupied the country, overthrew the government and put their leader in jail, all within a few months time. From a military perspective I'd say thats a pretty effective ass-kicking. The military did their job well.
Whether they should have been sent there in the first place is a different question though. You can argue that the evidence suggested they had weapons of mass destruction and a nuke program which justified our attack. But those things were not found so the question now is why are we still there?

[CARLHAYDEN]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

Boss,

Recently you seem to be going a little off the tracks.

First, the Iraq action has already been a qualified sucess.  Ask the Libyans.

Second, Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

Third, notice how the various islamic states have calmed down since the current government was installed a couple of months ago.

Fourth, while there are those who want the United States to cut and run, it isn't going to happen.

If you bother to look below the surface, there are only three shrinking groups not reconciled to the new government (the foreign fighters of Al Queda, the Fedayeen, and a small number of Shiites).

The Iraqi government is getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with the terrorists.

[2952-0-0]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

Boss,

Recently you seem to be going a little off the tracks.

First, the Iraq action has already been a qualified sucess.  Ask the Libyans.

Second, Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

Third, notice how the various islamic states have calmed down since the current government was installed a couple of months ago.

Fourth, while there are those who want the United States to cut and run, it isn't going to happen.

If you bother to look below the surface, there are only three shrinking groups not reconciled to the new government (the foreign fighters of Al Queda, the Fedayeen, and a small number of Shiites).

The Iraqi government is getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with the terrorists.

First, North Korea is arming nukes.

Second, this war has increased antiamericanism in the world.

Thrid, dictatorships like Egypt are deteriorating their human rights record. Mubarack is using torture tacticts inspired by Abu Ghraib.

Fourth, we cannot cut and run but we can establish democracy even f it means Islamic rule.

If you bother to look below the surface, you will see that the majorty of Iraqis sympathise with the insurgants, if they don't actively support them.

The Iraqi government is allowing foreigners run the country and is therefore not getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with puppet regimes.

[DA]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

Um.. how does one disarm an unarmed man exactly?

[John Dibble]

The U.S. military hammered the daylights out of the Iraqi military, occupied the country, overthrew the government and put their leader in jail, all within a few months time. From a military perspective I'd say thats a pretty effective ass-kicking. The military did their job well.
Whether they should have been sent there in the first place is a different question though. You can argue that the evidence suggested they had weapons of mass destruction and a nuke program which justified our attack. But those things were not found so the question now is why are we still there?

I'm in agreeance, from a military standpoint Iraq has been a major success. Whether you like it or not, it's nothing like Vietnam.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

Boss,

Recently you seem to be going a little off the tracks.

First, the Iraq action has already been a qualified sucess.  Ask the Libyans.

Second, Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

Third, notice how the various islamic states have calmed down since the current government was installed a couple of months ago.

Fourth, while there are those who want the United States to cut and run, it isn't going to happen.

If you bother to look below the surface, there are only three shrinking groups not reconciled to the new government (the foreign fighters of Al Queda, the Fedayeen, and a small number of Shiites).

The Iraqi government is getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with the terrorists.

First, North Korea is arming nukes.

Second, this war has increased antiamericanism in the world.

Thrid, dictatorships like Egypt are deteriorating their human rights record. Mubarack is using torture tacticts inspired by Abu Ghraib.

Fourth, we cannot cut and run but we can establish democracy even f it means Islamic rule.

If you bother to look below the surface, you will see that the majorty of Iraqis sympathise with the insurgants, if they don't actively support them.

The Iraqi government is allowing foreigners run the country and is therefore not getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with puppet regimes.

Well, at least your consistent.  Consistently WRONG!

First, North Korea was producing nucleqar warheads under Clinton and now they feel that people like you will make sure that they are immune.  

Second, the war has NOT increased antiAmericanism.  People like you have always hated the United States.  

Third, if you think that countries like Egypt are suddenly becoming more brutal, you really need to stop doing the drugs (or perhaps start taking your medicine).

Fourth, not particulary interested in establishing a democracy in Iraq, just interested in their being a government which doesn't support terrorism or antiamericanism.

Fifth, the Iraqi people do NOT support the terrorists.  While it is clear where you sympathies lie!

Sixth, the US forces repeatedly stopped offensives against Sadr due to the fact that the Iraqi government asked us to.  In short, they are in charge.

[DA]

Predictions:

The US will decide we are done and the Iraqis will agree so we get out of their buisness, we however will not have solved much. The following will probably result:

1) The country will split.

2) Kurds will unite encouraging similar actions in (at least) Syria and Turkey. Upon which both countries (especially Turkey) will freak out and start attacking anyone they feel is threatening the integrity of the countries.

3) (this is a two parter) Either a) (most likely) Shiites will take the majority of the country and will attempt to consolidate power with Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. or b) (less likely) Sunnis will take power (AGAIN!), gain sympathy from Sudan (also not the highest odds in the house), and cripple the Saudi government (whose own sunnis rise up). (and there goes our precious oil.)

4) Either way Iran is going to get deeper into the mess and they look to benifit the most.

[David S]

This is a little offshoot of the thread ( hope you don't mind Boss Tweed). It doesn't look like Bush or Kerry has any intention of exiting Iraq in the near future. The military is already using reserves and keeping regular soldiers beyond their normal tour of duty to maintain troop strength. So it is not out of the question that a draft will be needed to continue the war. Some of you guys are young enough to be drafted, but are opposed to the war. What will you do if you get a letter that says you're drafted?

[DA]

I would go to jail I suppose.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The U.S. military hammered the daylights out of the Iraqi military, occupied the country, overthrew the government and put their leader in jail, all within a few months time. From a military perspective I'd say thats a pretty effective ass-kicking. The military did their job well.
Whether they should have been sent there in the first place is a different question though. You can argue that the evidence suggested they had weapons of mass destruction and a nuke program which justified our attack. But those things were not found so the question now is why are we still there?

We're still there because we're trying to stablize the country, so it doesn't descend into either anarchy, civil war, or theocratic totalitarianism.  Whether we were right or not to go in the first place, we are now there to HELP the people of Iraq.  Not to occupy, not to colonize, not to plunder.  It gets my blood boiling, all of these so-called "insurgents," screwing over the future of the Iraqi people, preventing their ultimate peace, freedom, and prosperity.  This has nothing to do with fighting against America.  This has to do with being opposed to a free and democratic society.  If they lay down their arms and accepted the new government, the Americans could withdraw, and Iraq could take its place among the democratic nations of the world.

We have the "insurgents" in Iraq, and the fact that among Arab League states, NOT ONE is a free democracy.  WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST FREEDOM???

Sorry, this whole thing makes me want to rant now and then.

[DA]

Don't forget potential secular totalitarianism (e.g., Saddam).


"WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST FREEDOM???"
Would you feel more free if a huge country came into your moderatly sized country and told you how you are goign to run things?

[© tweed]

Second, Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

Third, notice how the various islamic states have calmed down since the current government was installed a couple of months ago.

Fourth, while there are those who want the United States to cut and run, it isn't going to happen.

The Iraqi government is getting its act together.

The average Iraqi has had enough with the terrorists.

Al Qaeda had few people in Iraq (there were probably more in the US) but the humber has increased since the war started.

1. Libya (debatable) 2. ?

Cutting and running would be a disasterous mistake.

Oh and tell me, how many Iraqis must we kill before we convince them that we're their friends?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Don't forget potential secular totalitarianism (e.g., Saddam).


"WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST FREEDOM???"
Would you feel more free if a huge country came into your moderatly sized country and told you how you are goign to run things?

We're not telling them how to run things.  We are trying to restore order and establish a popularly-elected government so that the people of Iraq can decide how to run things.

How would you feel if you were ruled by a brutal dictator who gassed ethnic minorities, had sick, sadistic kids who liked to torture people for sport, and built opulent palaces while you had barely enough food to survive - and the world stood by and did nothing out of respect for your "national sovereignty?"

Now, it's not my intention to justify the decision to go to war in the first place - just to say that all these people fighting against the American presence need to get some friggin' perspective!  WE ARE ON YOUR SIDE!

[Huckleberry Finn]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

But they have killed lot of your troops who they couldn't kill without war on Iraq.

[ilikeverin]

This is a little offshoot of the thread ( hope you don't mind Boss Tweed). It doesn't look like Bush or Kerry has any intention of exiting Iraq in the near future. The military is already using reserves and keeping regular soldiers beyond their normal tour of duty to maintain troop strength. So it is not out of the question that a draft will be needed to continue the war. Some of you guys are young enough to be drafted, but are opposed to the war. What will you do if you get a letter that says you're drafted?

One of the following:

1) Jail
2) Canada (if there is some good college up there)
3) Some other country.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How is it the most successful when nothing has been achieved yet?

We achieved our mission, to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. I didn't agree with this war, but Bush did what he set out to do.

What about how we were going to spread democracy to the people of Iraq?  That worked out real well.

The mission may be achieved but it has not yet, so it's silly to call it the most effective war in American history.

Al Queda has lost a lot of their people in Iraq, and antagonized a lot of personnel in Iraq.

But they have killed lot of your troops who they couldn't kill without war on Iraq.

Sorry, but you have to remember the number of deaths that would have resulted had the United States failed to act.

[The Duke]

Don't forget potential secular totalitarianism (e.g., Saddam).


"WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST FREEDOM???"
Would you feel more free if a huge country came into your moderatly sized country and told you how you are goign to run things?

Most Americans had nothing against France for aiding us in overthrowing the King fo England as our ruler.  There is no logical reason for Iraqis to oppose a foreign power that aided them in gaining freedom any more than Germans or Italians or Japanese had a right to do so in WWII.

[DA]

Don't forget potential secular totalitarianism (e.g., Saddam).


"WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST FREEDOM???"
Would you feel more free if a huge country came into your moderatly sized country and told you how you are goign to run things?

Most Americans had nothing against France for aiding us in overthrowing the King fo England as our ruler.  There is no logical reason for Iraqis to oppose a foreign power that aided them in gaining freedom any more than Germans or Italians or Japanese had a right to do so in WWII.

They didn't want us there, I think that's a "logical" reason. Don't throw Japan into this, that was completely different. As for German and Italian independence, I don't really know about that.