Your failure to put a limit on how many casualties you would find acceptable in Iraq only proves that you have no clue what it is worth to us.
Did we put a limit on the number of casualities we were willing to accept during WWI or WWII? No...
We said we would accept whatever was required to bring the Axis powers to unconditional surrender.
300,000 dead in WWII alone, over the course of 3 years (1942-1945).. And we would have added probably another 100,000 to that tally had we not used nuclear weapons against Japan.
And I have a personal problem myself with the current administration. I don't think they properly explained to the American people exactly what I've been discussing out here about the fight we have in front of us, or the degree of steadfast support and will we must have in order to eventually succeed.
And I guess I can understand, on one hand, why they hesitate about discussing the true nature of the threat, for fear of lending psychological support and encouragement to the militants. Who wants to be the one who creates some kind of legitimacy for the militant movement by comparing it to the threat the Nazis, Imperial Japan, or the Sovet Union posed to global freedom?
We would like to create the impression that they are international criminals, a small minority of the whole, without trying to confess that these guys have a global agenda of conquest which might increase their ranks and respect within the muslim world.
But that's what we're facing Carl.. They will come after us, regardless of whether we we're in Iraq or not.
The US will still take the blame for the plight of the Muslim world, regardless of whether we're in the region or not.
And we'll still find ourselves shedding even more American blood down the road, probably from innocent civilians, no matter whether we had gone into Iraq or not.
So if we're going to be to blame anyway for the problems in the mid-east, and the militants are going to continue to focus their attention upon trying to destroy our economy and global economic and political structure (so they can then be able to "compete" with us), or to make us so damn frightened that we lock up all musliims in internment camps or deport them, then it seems logical that we might as well commence the fight now, rather than wait until later when the price in blood might be even greater.
It's more than just about Iraq. It's about trying to create positive change in the region, even if we have to pummel every militant leader into submission in the process and make them frightened to confront us.
We have to fight the militant movement, but at the same time, it's our responsibility to show the muslim world that we care enough about them to provide them an alternative solution that will provide hope for their futures.
And it sure doesn't help when we have people like yourself, Hans Blix, and the intransigent French complicating the problem by claiming that the region was "safer" prior to the US overthrow of Saddam..
Because that's just BS.. The militancy has been there for years. All we've done is unveil and expose it. And since it's this militancy that is the source of Islamic terrorism against the US, then it's a legitimate target for a war on terror.
So how much is it worth? It's worth saving us from paying the cost of unaccountable thousands (millions?) of lives that likely will be lost in future years if we sit back and keep whistlin' past the graveyard like you seem to suggest.
From the tenor of your posts it is already clear to me that you sense that we may not win in Iraq.
I've never said that Iraq would be a guaranteed success. I stated that it was NECESSARY TO TRY.
If we are forced to pull out, I dare say that we're going to see the nation partitioned (torn apart) by the various neighboring states that fear a civil war, let alone autonomous states that might incite insurgencies by their own minor ethnicities.
This is what the Saudis fear most, a Shiite state that might cause their own Shiite population (some 10 million) to attempt to overthrow the royal family. And Iran might feel some need to support the Shiites against the Sunnis and Wahhabists.
Thus, if we fail in Iraq, it sets the possibility that we'll support the re-establishment of an authoritarian ruler who can quash the various elements of the society.
But I don't think that will be Saddam (although in some worse case scenario, heaven forbid, such a rumour might be permitted to be spread around).
Hawk |
