Forums | MacLife

So many dead?
Ok, here come the flames, but I have been shocked at how SMALL the death toll has been.
I had expected a zero on the end of the American/Brit death toll.
I had expected at least what the Iraqies claim for civilian.
So many? What the hell are you thinking?

Not that many people died in the Twin Towers.  I live in New York, and only one person I knew was affected by the towers... (her father died  )... You can't simplify everything down to plain numbers.

Now I know you're crazy.  Thousands of people aren't many people?  You're a nutbag.

So many dead?
Ok, here come the flames, but I have been shocked at how SMALL the death toll has been.
I had expected a zero on the end of the American/Brit death toll.
I had expected at least what the Iraqies claim for civilian.
So many? What the hell are you thinking?

Not that many people died in the Twin Towers.  I live in New York, and only one person I knew was affected by the towers... (her father died  )... You can't simplify everything down to plain numbers.

Now I know you're crazy.  Thousands of people aren't many people?  You're a nutbag.

It's a lot of people for Americans, who are not used to massacres, etc. like many, many other countries are.  Guess how many people got killed by ethnic conflict in the past week or so?  In the thousands.  That was page 16 news.

Everything's relative.

Uh, let's see Kent, the few US and British deaths, and few thousands of Iraqi's killed vs how many hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam and how many more hundreds of thousands that would have died had he stayed in power?

You're ignoring half of reality.

What about all the American soldiers? They are my towns sons, daughters, husbands, wives, uncles, aunts, and friends. What do you tell the wife of a dead soldier who has a 14 month old and is 6 months pregnant?

This conflict wasn't worth the blood of a single American life, let alone several hundred.

There simply is nothing we gained from this terrible mistake, and everything we lost.

Ask the Iraqi mother who witnessed her son's arms being blown off by a stray US bomb. Was it worth it to her?

That same Iraqi mother probably had a husband or son killed by Saddam. It may have been worth it to her. How about you ask the thousands of Iraqi mothers who now will not have a son killed by Saddam?

It was worth it. There will always be loss, and always be tragedy. But some things need to be done.

Do you drive a car? You know people die in car accidents, right? There is a chance you could even kill someone in your car! Will you be able to tell that mother that killing her son was worth it because you got places faster? Don't drive walk! (to give an extremely stupid example of the logic in the above post)

What about all the American soldiers? They are my towns sons, daughters, husbands, wives, uncles, aunts, and friends. What do you tell the wife of a dead soldier who has a 14 month old and is 6 months pregnant?

This conflict wasn't worth the blood of a single American life, let alone several hundred.

There simply is nothing we gained from this terrible mistake, and everything we lost.

My brother-in-law is over there too. What about all the thousands of soldiers who believed in what they were doing and were ready to pay the price? You convienently ignore them.

Kent, you can't be so emotional about things. Like I pointed out earlier in this post, some things need to be done and "If it saved just one life..." arguments are total crap. People die all the time. Such is life. Sure, probably a few less US soldiers would have died had we not gone in. But in the long term, many more Iraqis would have died as well.

My sister has 1 year old daughter. What would I tell her if her husband were to be KIA? Certinaly not "He died for a useless cause that could have been avoided, but Bush is the great satan". How about "He died for the freedom of countless others, and you should be proud of him" and then help her out as much as possible by babysitting, helping financially, etc.

Again, by your logic, we should outlaw all cars, because people die in accidents ("What do we tell their fathers?" Someone will cry through tear-filled eyes). We should shut down all factories, because some people get injured ("Think about the newly widowed wives" Wails someone). Not let there be boats, because someone who can't swim might fall off ("Don't pollute the water with your foul bodies!" Yells Greenpeace). And while were at it, let's outlaw babies. I mean after all, some of them die in their sleep, and no one knows why. We don't need to put an innocent mother through all that pain, do we?

Do you drive a car? You know people die in car accidents, right? There is a chance you could even kill someone in your car! Will you be able to tell that mother that killing her son was worth it because you got places faster? Don't drive walk! (to give an extremely stupid example of the logic in the above post)

That is, as difficult as it is for me to say, actually a really good point.

This I will have to think about, Neut.

Bullcrap...

America DOES AGREE, according to whatever legitimate poll you pay attention to (Wash Post, CNN, etc.) with the President, they (68%) support action in Iraq, and I am sure they feel WAR was worth "it"... I know I think war was worth sacrifice, I am sure MANY Iragi citizens feel that war was worth struggle, and if anyone here watched the news last night, there is an enormous group of ex-Iraqis in Dearborn, Michigan, that are extremely greatful America has made this sacrifice and liberated Iraq.

Starting a post that "America Agrees: This "War" Wasn't Worth It" makes no sense at all and has no factual basis..... tell you what.... ask the soldiers, when they return, if this war was legitimate. I'll bet they all say "yes" because they have seen the damage that Saddam beset upon his own country and they were a central part in assuring freedom to the next generation of Iraqi citizens!

God Bless President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, the 101st Infantry, and the Marines!

Uh, let's see Kent, the few US and British deaths, and few thousands of Iraqi's killed vs how many hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam and how many more hundreds of thousands that would have died had he stayed in power?

You're ignoring half of reality.

What about all the American soldiers? They are my towns sons, daughters, husbands, wives, uncles, aunts, and friends. What do you tell the wife of a dead soldier who has a 14 month old and is 6 months pregnant?

This conflict wasn't worth the blood of a single American life, let alone several hundred.

There simply is nothing we gained from this terrible mistake, and everything we lost.

They joined the military voluntarily knowing the risks.  It's not like they were forced to fight like Saddam's army. Your statement seems to imply that those in the military have no idea what they could be getting themselves into... what an assinine belief.

Iraq was a few years ago from having nuclear bombs.  What if they nuked Kuwait City?  Isn't preveting that worth one hundred American lives?  Furthermore, isn't liberating thirty million people from a tyrannical leader worth one hundred American lives?  One hundred isn't very much, especially for an entire war.

So, because they joined voluntarily, we should send them off to die without factoring their deaths into the equation?

How do you figure their deaths weren't factored into the equation?  It's unbelievibly ethnocentric of you to value an American life over that of any other.  People join the Army knowing the risks.  It is not unreasonable to ask them to die for worthy causes as defined by the President.  That's their job.

How am I valuing American lives over others?!?!? If anything, it would be the opposite I'd be accused of, I would think....

How am I valuing American lives over others?!?!? If anything, it would be the opposite I'd be accused of, I would think....

Because clearly, getting rid of Saddam Hussein saves thousands of Iraqi lives.

Yay, another fair weather Iraqi humanist supporting a fair weather war.

Take a look at what goes on in other parts of the world that the US has been ignoring for decades before you try and justify this war as some kind of saintly altruistic act.

Yay, another fair weather Iraqi humanist supporting a fair weather war.

Take a look at what goes on in other parts of the world that the US has been ignoring for decades before you try and justify this war as some kind of saintly altruistic act.

Ugh.  So you would rather do nothing?  Because we're not helping -everyone- we can't help anyone?  Boy, I wish I was as cosmopolitan as you; then I could be cynical about everything.

I never said I'd prefer we do nothing. I never even suggested that.

I simply prefer we be more even handed with our foreign policies and not let economy and power gains be the determining factors in the wars we choose to fight while trying to sell them off as humanitarian efforts in order to give them more credibility.

Cynical about everything? Hardly. Cynical about this joke of an Administration we currently have? Absolutely.

I never said I'd prefer we do nothing. I never even suggested that.

I simply prefer we be more even handed with our foreign policies and not let economy and power gains be the determining factors in the wars we choose to fight while trying to sell them off as humanitarian efforts in order to give them more credibility.

Cynical about everything? Hardly. Cynical about this joke of an Administration we currently have? Absolutely.

By demanding that we have an 'even handed' approach with foreign policy implies that if we invade anyone for a given reason, we have to invade everyone that qualifies.  Iraq was a prime target because of its record-setting defiance of the UN, its relatively weak army, it has a population that hates its government, and it has plenty of money to actually implement a workable democracy.  Sure, there are plenty of other countries that should be invaded if Iraq is, but you have to start somewhere, and it makes sense to start with the most attractive target.

The Bush Administration hasn't been in power for the last fifty years.  You can't judge their foreign policy based on the decisions of others.  The first thing to remember when you criticize the United States' foreign policy is that those who define it change every four to eight years.  Of course you're not going to have a consistent policy when the government is overthrown perodically.

It should be noted that I am a liberal and that I would never vote for Bush.  I think his domestic policy is terrible.  I used to be strongly against this war and ranted with the best of them on this board and other places about how we shouldn't invade.  About two months ago, I changed my mind and have since supported an active enforcement of human rights and democratic principle.  What is the good of being a superpower if we appease every brutal dictator?  Clearly the United Nations can't serve as a policing force in the world, so that leaves us with the moral obligation.  A world as defined by the United States is not a bad one!  Taking these people out of power isn't imperialism; it's liberation.

To secure peace in the Mideast: Let me get this straight, we invaded a nation in a region whose demographic is willing to blow themselves up and fly planes into building to cause any kind of damage to the US, and we're going to have peace? I don't think so.

So you and your he-man, master of the universe buddies would trivialize the brutal attacks on America on Spetember 11th, and be against justice to be dealt to the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists and the nations like Iraq that support them, eh?

You think that our being altruistic to the terrorists and giving them what they want will stop terrorism?

You talk nonsense.