900 dead

[Limeoutsider]

Since the beginning of the Iraq war on March 2003, 900 American soldiers have given their lives. On Wednesday, a 1st Infantry Division soldier was killed by a bomb while on duty. This occurred 45 miles north of Baghdad. <respond> How do you feel about the large number of American soldiers dying in this war? Do you feel as if they died for a good cause or not?

[august spies]

of course not. but those who sent them to their death and killed 10,000+ iraqis dont see it that way. Their goal is to hide the death in doublespeak. "we had to destroy the village to save it"

[TicklishKev]

If you view a cause which changes every time it's found out to be false, then go for it. I want those soldiers to come home. However, if we do that, then we're likely to see the bloodiest 3-way civil war in history, as the factions of Iraq slaughter one another over rule of the country. Saddam was a rotten fuck, but he was also a keystone keeping that country in check. We removed it, and just took for granted that they would embrace democracy, something they have never known in history. And by history I mean HISTORY. Iraq was Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization and oldest country on earth. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "can't teach an old dog new tricks". They're tribal, will always be tribal, and they've been FORCED to be different for about 30 years. If they were forced one way, do you think they'll accept the SUGGESTION of another way?

So we're damned if we stay and Iraq is damned if we leave. And if Kerry wins (please god let him win), you can bet your ass that the Republicans will use that fact against him, being the new Commander in Chief left to mop up this mess.

Nevertheless, I want us out of that country. The Iraqis want us out, a lot of the soldiers want out, and half the country wants them out. Old white men in comfy leather chairs and their brainwashed subservients want them to stay and die, saying that WE don't support the troops. Go figure.

**
Kev

[gila67]

To go a little farther into the history, I have a hard time understanding why people insist on holding Iraq together instead of allowing it to split along natural ethnic/religious lines, provided there was some way to prevent excessive violence (maybe peacekeeping forces as are or were stationed in former Yugoslavia). Why try to preserve this "country" that was imposed by the British politicians eighty years ago?

To address the point of the thread, I'm not sure what I think about numbers. As tragic as the loss of all these lives is, I can't say I'm too comfortable about the counting of numbers; where war is involved, there are bigger issues than keeping a tally. That's one reason I have stopped watching most media coverage; the daily "one soldier killed..." broadcasts.

About the 900 you mention, isn't that a strangely round number? And you refer to the 900 since March 2003 as a large number; it's certainly not miniscule, but how many soldiers gave their lives between March 1942 and July 1943? Or the same period in 1862 and 1863? Now, this isn't meant as a personal attack, just trying to introduce some history into the topic.

[Jimblast]

They have died for a good cause. Let's compare the cause ours and the Iraqi soldiers died for with the hundreds of thousands and likely well over a million who died at the hands of Saddam. Then we can talk about giving a country a shot at freedom. Don't kid yourself, of course it's a good cause.

[august spies]

they only freedom they died for is freedom fries. The us wasnt concerned about freedom in iraq back then and its not now.

money money money....

[Jimblast]

So tell us.....let's say hypothetically that you're the President of the United States:

The Clinton Administration has had 8 years to weaken the CIA, he also caved in to American Airlines in terms of beefening up airport security.

You've been President for merely 8 months.

9/11 has happened, killing 3000 Americans on our soil in one hour.

Russian, English, and the CIA all say without a doubt that Saddam has weaopons of mass destruction.

According to page 66 of the just released 9/11 Commission Report, you were told that Saddam sent a contingent to Afghanistan and even discussed a safe haven for Osama.

Whose to say that Osama could not procure WMD's including Anthrax or Serin from Iraq and use it against us?

Now, having the SAME knowledge that Bush would have had, should we have taken any chances NOT going in? We're not even talking about the possible millions Saddam tortured to death.

As President of the United States, explain to us how you WOULDN'T have gone into Iraq?

I'll be awaiting this response for sure! :D

[TicklishKev]

Can I explain on august's behalf?

I read basically waffle from that post, signed with a smug come-on and a smiley emote. I'll bite.

I read: 'discussed' harboring Osama.

I read: 'possible' millions tortured to death.

I read: Osama 'could' procure WMD's from Saddam.

So Bush declared war on a hunch.

I also read: Yet another blame on Clinton for not preparing. Dispite being *warned* by Clinton as Bush took office that Osama was a huge priority, he put it on a back burner. Bush, during his 8 months, *dismissed* files from from the investigations into finding Osama, that Clinton implemented, during one of his frequent vacations to Crawford. I guess digging up tree roots was far more important than a possible attack on the US.

Bush, despite being warned by Clinton, gave terrorism very little thought when he came in, and started the Iraq War on sketchy evidence and a gut feeling. Bearing in mind we only learned about a supposed tie with Osama and Saddam more than a year AFTER we invaded!!

If I were President, as you want me to play make beleive here (god this is a fun fantasy), I would NOT start a war unless I had UNANIMOUS approval from not just my entire country, but the world too. If the UN (who get more war experience than anyone in modern times through peacekeeping) tells you it's a stupid idea, you LISTEN to them!!!!!

What would I do as President? I would address the people. And I would say the following:

"My fellow Americans...I wish to talk to you, sitting here in my office, man to nation, about a proposal. I wish to talk to you about the country of Saudi Arabia.

"Through the one-and-a-half million barrels of oil it sends us daily, the trillion dollars it has invested in our stock market, and another trillion it has in our banks, Saudi Arabia contributes so much to our economy and way of life that it would most likely bankrupt our country if they pulled all of this money out.

"But can you put a price on the heads of 3000 US citizens who have been murdered. 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia...and it is a known training ground and harbor for the al Qaeda organisation who masterminded the attacks on our country.

"You may be asking yourselves, if they have so much invested in trade, then why did they destroy the World Trade Center? It is the disillusioned people of this country that spawn these terrorist radicals, not the leaders who invest in us. But as these leaders refuse to do anything to stop them, I fear the worst.

"I have come before you today to ask a great thing from you...to ask if you have it in you to stand together to weather out an economic recession unlike any in our nation's history, if it means bringing true justice to the real culprits.

"I ask your permission, your vote, and with UN approval, to gather a force and implement a plan to declare imminent war on the nation of Saudi Arabia."

As President, I wouldn't care about what country lines my pockets, and I would ASK the country if it cares about who lines theirs. And if the people said no, I would back down. I have a feeling that after 9/11 the people would have gone to ANY length to see true justice be done. I think they would have said yes.

**
Kev

[leafstk]

I don't think its for a good cause at all, personally. The legitimacy of this war has been debated endlessly, not only on this little site, but the world over. I'm not saying this is another Vietnam War, but the amount of criticism reflected at the U.S. not only within its own borders, but worldwide as a result of this thing certainly brings cause for comparison. I fear they've started something there they will not soon be able to put to rest and there is even more danger of this thing spreading than abating.

[MrMacphisto]

I like to call this war Vietnam Lite.... There were far more deaths in Vietnam, but the political hypocrisy surrounding this war is quite similar. The guerilla tactics of our enemies are quite similar as well. I'm just glad it's not in a fucking jungle this time around.

[august spies]

"] So tell us.....let's say hypothetically that you're the President of the United States:

The Clinton Administration has had 8 years to weaken the CIA, he also caved in to American Airlines in terms of beefening up airport security.

You've been President for merely 8 months.

9/11 has happened, killing 3000 Americans on our soil in one hour.

Russian, English, and the CIA all say without a doubt that Saddam has weaopons of mass destruction.

According to page 66 of the just released 9/11 Commission Report, you were told that Saddam sent a contingent to Afghanistan and even discussed a safe haven for Osama.

Whose to say that Osama could not procure WMD's including Anthrax or Serin from Iraq and use it against us?

Now, having the SAME knowledge that Bush would have had, should we have taken any chances NOT going in? We're not even talking about the possible millions Saddam tortured to death.

As President of the United States, explain to us how you WOULDN'T have gone into Iraq?

I'll be awaiting this response for sure!"


First off i wouldnt want to be a president, beings that concentrated power is the bane of my existence.

but hypothetically i try and respond.

first off if i were president 9/11 probably wouldnt have happend. because i would have stopped blindly funding the israeli occupation and settlements, ended the genocide sanctions on iraqi children, and stopped sucking the. proverbial cock of the saudi dictators. and apologized to the world for past presidents.

Whats that imperial capitalist institutions with a history of lying and torture say iraq has WMDs??? could there be an alterior motive here? nahhhhhhhh

i didnt see page 66 and from your previous posts i dont trust you. Saddam was an ideolgical black to osams white so i doubt that happened. the only al queda esque group in iraq was operation in kurdish controlled areas.

Whose to say osama couldnt procure a gaint dildo to smash the worlds infidels? beings that saddam had no stockpiles of anything nor the means to produce stockpiles of anything that statement is inane.

No, you dont go in and take over a country for the benifit of rich people, they dont need any more benifits. Those saddam tortured to death were mainy victims from when he was a trusted friend and ally of your trusted friends and allies.

US foreign policy has a long history of changing countries from democracys to bloody dictatorships, many without invasions. On numerous times this country could have done the same with iraq.

[ThaDonMakaveli]

Large number that have died in this war?? Find me the war where one country has completely taken over another and then occupied it for over a year, all while losing less than a thousand troops.

900 troops is a mind bogglingly low number of casualties for a war of this magnitude and duration