Why do you say there will be more Iraqi deaths if Bush were to end the invasion?
I was sloppy in my expression. I meant Iraqi civilians.
While I am skeptical about what weapons Saddam might have, I don't doubt that he kills his people. I would imagine that, if we bailed out, he would take it out on those considered sympathetic to us. I can easily imagine him punishing those towns that have been shown on CNN welcoming our troops.
So the body bag count would be lower for the allies' military but Iraqi civilians may well die in much greater numbers. We can't possibly kill as many Iraqi civilians with our bombs as Saddam can with his vengeance so US retreat would be a net loss of life, that is, life that I care about. I don't care about how many Iraqi regular soldiers die. And I'm not apologizing for that.
I think that is one damage already done, cast in concrete, and dried.
Would you elaborate on that? Seems to me that, if the US withdraws (fails) in it's preemptive war, that other countries might be less likely to try it. No?
Seriously, my understanding is that the rest of the world does not feel UN needs a new life.
No doubt. Still, if the US, as the world's only superpower, as they say, ignores it or goes around it or pulls out of it, as has been proposed, it is weaker than it would be with us as active participants.
A quick end to this conflict, would stop the harm where it is now and prevent it from going further.
That's interesting. I would not think the damage done by continued hostilities would be a straight line but rather a sharp increase with the onset of the war followed by a fairly flat curve. Seems to me that the people who hated us before the war, like the Arab street, couldn't hate us much more if the fighting continues for a while. Those whose distaste was exacerbated by the war, like the European greens, for example, might react as you say. I'm not particularly concerned about the latter bunch. Those things come and go and a new US administration, whenever that might occur, might be enough to patch that up. I'm concerned about the budding Usamas around the world. I don't think the hatred of that bunch will be reined in by US retreat. Instead, it could well arouse them further because they respect strength, not weakness.
I cannot agree that the US has the right to seize Iraq's oil riches in any case.
Me neither. What I meant was that, as long as the US controls the territory with the oil fields, they are safe from destruction and we are all safe from the environmental destruction that Saddam could effect if he controlled them. No matter what I think of this war and its architects, I don't for a minute believe that they would steal Iraq's oil (although they might skim a little off the top). I feel much better having US troops keeping watch over them. That the oilfields were taken without their destruction was a big accomplishment of the war so far. The war machine deserves credit for that. I'm way too green to easily hand them back.
I don't think the financial cost is one of the more important risks in this invasion.
The US suffered under deficit spending for so very long. We finally get out from under that and we throw it all away. I'm just sick about it. I understand that this matters more to us than to the rest of the world, but a stagnant economy in the US hurts the rest of the world, too. Plus, that money could be spent for other things, things that would be more in your interest, such as education, for example, so we don't continue to produce so many troglodytes. <g> |
