"It's a number"

Re: "Its's a number"

"Well, we tried," doesn't cut it with me.

But it's a step above, "We couldn't be bothered."

 

Re: "Its's a number"

You still haven't answered my question.

By your logic the U.S. should invade any country where they perceive there are significant violations of human rights?

Why aren't there U.S troops heading for China right now or why didn't the U.S. invade the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin.

It's a rhetorical question.

Bottom line is, you can rationalize the invasion of Iraq all you want but it doesn't wash.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

SC, I respect your desire to protect the lives of thousands, but you're awfully quick to send American troops all over the world to fight your battles for you. The people most hungry for a war are usually the ones not actually doing the fighting, otherwise we'd have thousands of grey-haired, fat and wealthy congressman running headlong toward the Iraqi Republican Guard.

There are atrocities committed the world over, and thousands die all the time. No one is saying Saddam is a good guy and no one is denying he's murdered thousands. But who does the deciding when it becomes our business? Where's the line that was crossed that forced the U.S. to feel it necessary to invade Iraq? What number of innocent lives lost compelled us?

We can't be the world's savior, no matter how much of a superpower we are. The British Empire nearly bled itself dry trying to put out fires on nearly every continent, and with declining numbers and morale within the military, we could be heading for that same fate.

The military is there to fight, but like any smart person, you've got to choose your battles. You fight the fight that's worth fighting, not just because the pictures on the evening news tug at our conscience.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

We can't invade every country that has significant violations of human rights. It's not possible. Some are more significant than others. I'm not going to talk about Stalin and the Soviet Union, because, well, I wasn't alive there. I'm not the male version of Ann Coulter. I agree with a lot of what Democrats and Republicans say and do. I've rationalized the invasion of Iraq to myself. That's all that matters to me. I'm not on this message board trying to change anybody's mind, but there is a differing view from "President Bush/U.S. dumb, stupid people." What's Canada's stance on significant violations of human rights? Down here, at least we're trying.

P.S. If it was a rhetorical question you wouldn't have asked me to answer.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

I realize we can't be the world's savior. And I realize we can't fight every battle. And I realize it's important to choose our battles wisely. But Saddam didn't kill thousands of people. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. He killed in excess the equivalent of a small state in this country.

We can't be the world's savior, but there sure isn't a line of people behind us willing to step forward. It's never going to be a perfect world. There's never going to be world peace. But because that's not going to happen, do we stop trying to make this world a better place because nobody else wants to try? Do we live happily ever after in our little utopia and not worry about the rest of the people?

You asked me when we draw the line. You asked how many innocent people need to die. I don't know. What side of the line do you think 300,000 should fall on?

 

Re: "Its's a number"

What makes Iraq more significant than, say, Iran? Or, say, North Korea? Or, say, Cuba? Or, say, China? All of whom have committed the same type of atrocities as Iraq and some of whom might actually be a threat to the USA, but none of whom we're on the verge of invading? Or, say, Angola? Or, say, Cameroon? Or any number of African nations which are just as much an imminent threat as Iraq was and who commit even worse atrocities of late, but none of whom we're on the verge of invading?

Why Iraq? Why then?

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Then I'd suggest you might want to read something about world history and international politics beginning with say, WW1. Basing your philosophy of foreign policy on the Fredo model isn't the smartest thing to do.

Bottom line is countries can't unilaterally decide to invade other sovereign countries when they're not under direct threat.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Do you believe no one else wants the world to be a better place but Americans? Or that we're the only ones willing to try? I think we need to give the world a little credit here. The lack of impulsive military action in favor of diplomacy on the part of other countries does not mean they're not willing to try.

We're picking a fight that's not going to end. We can't forsake the assistance of the world by sending our troops everywhere in the world. It's our very own Waterloo.

And as Hitler erred in making the same mistake that cost Napoleon his empire (invading Russia, fighting a war on two fronts), we're erring in making the same mistake the British (and Romans before them) made in spreading our troops too thin around the world. It's not going to work any better for us than it did for those two fallen empires.

Then what will we have to show for it?

 

Re: "Its's a number"

I don't know. Some would argue that Bush was given incorrect information in the run-up to the war. I don't have "Fredo" on speed dial. I can't answer questions like that. I'm not a card-carrying member of the Republican party. Your above argument is we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because other countries were being bad boys, too? I'm sure if we invated Angola or Cameroon, you'd be up in arms over that, too. Some people are against war, and I respect that. You live in your two-story house with a garage and an SUV. You take your kids to a ballgame or ballet practice. It doesn't affect you. Iraq doesn't affect you. But it affects somebody. It affects a lot of people. What do you propose we do? Sit on the sidelines and watch the world crumble around us and do nothing? Answer this: Would you have allowed Saddam to stay in control, continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people and to treat his living constiuents as poorly as he had?

Saddam Hussein invated Kuwait. He killed thousands during the Iraq-Iran War. Is the world safer or less safer without him in the picture? If you say anything other than safer, you're full of it.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

This will sound crass and inhumane, but as a veteran, I feel it's a question worth asking.

What's the value of 300,000 Iraqi lives compared to the lives of 2,500 Americans -- a number that's certain to grow?

It's not an equation any of us are equipped to make, but it takes more than sheer numbers to make it a fight worth fighting. It also takes another nation being a threat to us. We're not conquerers out to make the world our empire, to be sure, but we are trying to promote the spread of democracy, sometimes through force. It's a fine idea, but what do I -- or we -- gain by sacrificing the lives of thousands of Americans for a nation of people who don't really seem to care all that much about what we're trying to do for them?

At some point, my concern and priorities return to a point within the borders of America and focus less on those of other nations. It's not a self-serving attitude, because if we don't take care of America, who's going to take care of us?

Again, it's about it being a fight worth fighting, and not just because of some noble idea of creating another democracy.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Wait a second, diplomacy? You mean the diplomacy that has worked in say Iran? Or,say, North Korea? Or, say, Cuba? Or, say, China? You mentioned that those countries have the same type of atrocities as Iraq and some might actually be a threat to the USA. How has diplomacy worked with them? North Korea has bombs pointed at us. Cuba isn't a problem, because we've essentially ruined their economy. That's not diplomacy working.

So you're argument is that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because there are other problems. You suggest diplomacy. But diplomacy hasn't worked at these other players. The majority of the world takes the "It's not bothering us approach" and things only get worse.

I'm waiting for somebody to make a reasonable comparison. We're Napoleon because we're trying to save Iraq? We're not trying to increase and extend our power; we're trying to fix a problem. There's quite a difference.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

That's a very good question, and one I'm certainly even less qualified to answer than you. I've got friends who have served in Iraq, and they'll disagree with your statement saying they don't care all that much about what we're trying to do for them. The majority, an extreme majority, of the people there are happy we've come to their aid. I'm not quoting a press release or something Tony Snow said on Fox News. I'm talking about what good, honest friends of mine have said upon returning from Iraq. So I disagree with that assessment.

I do agree that things have gotten out of hand there, and that there are many things that have been messed up. I think it could have been all handled with a much smoother transition and by more scrupulous planning. But it wasn't, so we're cleaning up a mess now. A mess we essentially created. But it's a mess that will leave people free to do as they please within the laws of their country. They'll get to vote. They'll get to have opinions. They'll get to worship whoever or whatever they want. If that's not worth fighting for, I don't know what is.