Would you still if 100 Americans* died? 1000? 5000? 10,000? 100,000? Right now, a little over half the country is in favor of war. However, most of the public probably believes that this will be a clean, easy war. Nowhere in the mainstream media and virtually no politician is even suggesting that we could suffer costly losses, let alone fail. I find this deeply troubling because even a small chance of failure or catastrophe should be carefully considered. So my question is this. If you're for the war, how much blood would you be willing to sacrifice? We can talk all day about how much we need to attack Iraq, but there must be a point where the price is too high. *For the sake of argument, let's limit this to just Americans. No offense to any others.
I support attacking Iraq. Once you're in it, you're committed. The American people would crucify anyone who suggested pulling out of a campaign like this once it is already started. This day and age, with our modern warfare 'techniques' and the technology available to our soldiers, there is no reason for a large scale loss of American life. Hell, in today's modern warfare, the loss of life has been minimized, even for the losing side. The bombing of targets (usually not civilian, and not filled with people) are the ultimate goals. Which isn't to say that people will not die, it is a war, but the humanitarian nature of the world today does not accept killing on a mass scale when there are other ways to do it (i.e. take out high profile individuals, bomb high profile targets, psychological warfare, etc.).
Two people would really sacrifice as many as 100,000 Americans to defeat Iraq?? More? I can't believe that anyone really feels that way. I put that figure as the insane choice to illustrate that there is a price that nobody would be willing to pay. Anyone willing to give up to 100,000 American lives to defeat Saddam is as dangerous as people who support Bin Laden. That's a whole lot of WTCs.
Nice poll but I'd be interested how people would repsond if one of those potential casualties was a blood relative of theirs? The problem with an all volunteer force is that we face the constant "well, its not my son/brother/sister" syndrome. It is almost as morally duplicitious as the "well, they volunteered (so their lives don't mean much to me/no need for any real discussion over their deployment)" stuff. If we had a draft, I wonder how many more people would want to discuss this one before we go forward. Hmmm.
good point. I doubt a war with Iraq with a draft would have 50% of the populations approval. also, what might make an interesting poll... how many Iraqi civilian casualties are you willing to accept and still support an attack.
where is the option for: if evidence is provided that Iraq has clearly continued to develop and proliferate WMD and has/is colluding with Al Queda? This is not about the body count .. at least not yet - it is about whether the act of going to war is justfied based on evidence and actions. And as a result of that evidence - is it worth going to war to better stabilize the Middle East. Others are going to say it is more about the oil. Of course, Zinni thinks the stabilization problem is the large number of disaffected Arab youth.
I can't overstate how wrong I think this is. It's not about cost??? Wtf??? Unless you think it's about oil or "the man who tried to kill my father," then the only reason we're going to war with Iraq and not NoKo is the cost. Let me stress, I agree that you have to take cost into account. So even the prez isn't this bloodthirsty. This ain't the Civil War or the Revolutionary War or WW II, or even last year's war in Afghanistan. We didn't have a choice in any of those wars. This is, plainly, beyond reasonable doubt, an optional war. It's the Spanish-American War, or the War of 1812, or the Vietnam War. Only a (and I'm being literal here) fascist or communist wouldn't consider the cost.
not it is not an optional war if you conclude that Iraq has proliferated anthrax or (worse) smallpox to Al Queda. this is about self defense in advance of a potentially horrific attack - something that would make 9-11 look like childs play. let me throw a doomsday scenario at you (I am sure this has been thought of so I am not revealing anything sensitive) .... assume 5 Al Queda operatives currently at contagious viral smallpox stage decide to walk through US airports and subway systems (my concern was frankly New Years eve in Times Square) in the concerted attempt to infect as many people as possible who would traverse this country quickly. Run the numbers. Now tell me what body count that equates to. Nice reading: Demon in the Freezer - currently on Amazon and in your favorite bookstore.
I agree...an Iraq-al-Qaeda link changes the equation. But you can't go on supposition. We know NoKo has nukes, and we know they like to sell weapons. So if the casus belli is that Iraq MIGHT do X, Y, or Z with their WMDs, then the case for war against NoKo is even more compelling. I've always found this notion that Saddam might aid al-Qaeda as dubious. He's a survivor. He didn't use chemical weapons in GW I. Why is that? Because he knows we would have obliterated him. Even in the bizarro moral universe that Saddam inhabits, using a terrorist organization to spread smallpox in the US is irrational. When we worry about that, we're the ones being irrational.
"supposition" - that is why I said "evidence". I don't find it dubious anymore than using knives to hijack American planes and have them collide into skyscrapers was Sept 10, 2001 or prior. He is survivor but he is also a force for destabilization in that area of the world. The assumption is that Al Qaeda will not work together with Hussein because one is secular and the other religious. That assumption is based on conventional not assymetric thought. Airplanes and skyscrapers are not conventional either. Another point of reference: Baader Meinhof was conducting bombings in Germany in the mid 70's in Germany - an extremist group in Germany at the time not thought to be linked to the Soviets. We now know that they were being funded through the Stasi by the East Germans and Soviet. Be careful what you assume. But the essence of my point is that these groups now attempt to go after western powers using assymetric techniques - and IMO they should not be underestimated. Saddam may provide weapons to Al Qaeda and work to hide all connections - how can we retaliate or defend ourselves if we don't know where the threat is truly coming from. Hence the need for intelligence and evidence.
NoKo is a very different story - yes they have nukes and will be working to get them ready ... but they are surrounded by South Korea (whom they desparately want to reunify with to save their economic arse eventually), Japan, and most importantly China. Those three countries are stabilizing forces around NoKo. Morally same principle - in national security terms - very different situation from Iraq. Consider Iraq surrounded by Iran, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. That is a very different situation.
Screw 'em, screw 'em, screw 'em, part of NATO so we'd be oblige to help out in case of attack anyway which is a doubtful project in any case because of all the Kurds in the way, screw 'em, screw 'em, and screw 'em once more. I actually agree that the North Korea parallel does not work, because our alleged diplomacy has alienated South Korea as well. There's no possible way to have a war on the North without the South's approval. I think American casualties are going to be about as low as last time (less than four hundred, unless you count Gulf War Syndrome) - it's the half million dead Iraqi civilians that bugs me. They don't ALL have it coming.
long term goal (partially similiar to Al Qaeda and Iran) - strengthening of pan Islam - under Iraqi leadership - ejection of western influence from the Middle East - control (directly or indirectly) of oil flow out of the Middle East - and last but not least - solution of the Palestinian problem (they view this as secondary) by removal of Israel as a state (they view this as primary). Long term goal is destabilization. Hussen's rise within his own country came from the Bath party takeover after a period of instability - and funded by the CIA. He tried to take Kuwait (miscalculation) because he viewed the Kuwaiti drilling as cross border and infringing upon Iraq's sovereignty. The war with Iran was functionally one of Shiite versus Sunni. But of course, now, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And of course he believes his people may die but he would survive if he is wrong about the West. Al Qaeda shares common goal of pan Islam growth and ejection of West from all Middle Eastern areas - ejecting corrupt Western people, culture and influence.
I think American casualties will be significantly higher if we have to go near Baghdad - which I do not think we will do ... I think we will attempt to get the Kurds and the exiles and the southern tribes to go into Baghdad - we saw carefully what happened in Chechnya. Our diplomacy has not worked in North Korea - partially because we are not dealing with a rational man - there is no answer but containment at present for North Korea - we will never invade that country - nor will South Korea - we will contain until it implodes - it may take 100 years.
I give up. You've made up your mind. Fine, have at it. You left out the part where Hussein has cloned himself so that after the US bombs all of Iraq into oblivion to make sure that he's dead, Mini-Saddam can lead this pan-Islam. Also, this Mini-Saddam won't lead an atheist party while leading a pan-Islamic movement. Yeah, that's the ticket. And you also left out the part where this WMD would magically kill only Israelis and not Palestinians. I guess it'll be like the last plague the Lord visited upon the Pharoah or something.
Great theory, except for the fact that Saddam is no fan of Islamic fundamentalism. His government is secular, to the point of being athiest.
Hussein "cloned himself" to avoid assassination ... pretty smart of him. We did not bomb all of Iraq last time - and (IF) this time around we would not bomb all of Iraq - that is point of precision munitions - hit targets and minimize civilian casualties. Hussein wants control and power and influence - whether secular or religious - notice the new religious phrase on the Iraqi flag that he directed? The WMD will kill Israeli's and Palestinians - heck he killed Palestinian's when he took over Kuwait. Like I said - the Palestinian question is secondary in his mind - he would rather eject Israel than give the Palestinian's a homeland. But you are right - if he or anybody else uses WMD it will be horrific. So do we sit idly by in fear while this nutcase potentially works more deals with terrorists .... but nothing should happen without solid evidence anyways.
stop thinking like Westerners - what is common in thousands of years in the Middle East? - Absolute power rules. And as I quoted before - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - If you don't believe it is possible - then we just disagree. But I think you would agree you will reconsider - IF - evidence is shown which validates this. He is no fan of fundamentalism once the common enemies have been dealt with. As I just indicated in a previous post - a religious phrase has been placed on the Iraqi flag as an attempt to appear more religious. Why in the heck would Hussein approve this? I mean - the man has absolute power - what the heck does he care?
OK, so you're comparing what we did when he attacked Kuwait to what we would do if he hooked up a terrorist cell with smallpox and spread that in the US. (And I really can't figure out why the hell you bring up assassination.) Like I wrote, have at it. A reality-optional world can be alot of fun.
More? OK, OK, the blood money he gives to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. That's so far from supplying a cell with biological weapons to attack the US that...can someone help me out here? I need a good metaphor. I, personally, do not think Saddam is suicidal. There's absolutely no evidence of that; in fact, the evidence we have is that he's the opposite, he's stunningly narcissistic. But in a reality optional world, foisting a self-destructive streak on Saddam works pretty well.
Has anyone else noticed the rich irony of telling us to stop thinking like Westerners and remember "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in a discussion of Saddam freakin' Hussein??? Comedy.
No I am not comparing it - you referred to "clone" - I assume you are talking about his survival instincts by the many doubles he uses to protect himself. If he hooked up with a terrorist cell - we would deal with him in a much more extreme fashion - if evidence shows that he has already tried that - or that he is proliferating this stuff - then we are not going to wait for something horrific. Is that not reality?
No, my point was that if he did what you're proposing, he wouldn't be leading any pan-Islamic movement because he'd be deader than dead. I guess there's a one in a million chance he would survive and go in hiding somewhere, so let me take that back. But there is no conceivable scenario in which he could pass biological weapons to a terrorist cell and survive as leader of Iraq. You cannot be serious in imagining that. You just can't.
you will give me the benefit of agreement if a link between Al Qaeda, Iraq and chem/bio weapons is proven? No he is not suicidal - but a maniacal dictator - yes. He miscalculated before with aggressive actions - with Iran, in Kuwait .... and yet he survived three Presidents - you do not think he is capable of more aggressive acts - to include supplying Al Qaeda with materials and know how while they conduct the actual attacks? That is a pretty big risk.