Really a good read here. Quite good today Friedman NYtimes.

[Gumby]

Would you agree that Saddam's regime was horrendous ?(I believe that when he went to the gallow he was responsible for more violent deaths than any man walking the face of the earth.)

If so would you be willing to sacrifice any American lives for freeing the Iraq people from Saddam and his son rule? Is 100 too many?

No argument here that Saddam was an evil tyrant (although GWB must be closing in on him for sheer number of violent deaths caused). But now you have a war searching for a justification. It was sold to us as a war to defend the US against the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam and as retribution for 9/11. Neither of the alleged predicates was true, and the evidence is fairly convincing that the Bush administration knew them not to be true prior to the start of the war. (And, frankly, even if Saddam had WMD's, the evidence was insufficient to show that he was threatening to use them on us or crazy enough to even think about it. We have far more WMD's than anyone else and have shown the propensity to use them. We could easily turn him and his country into a parking lot.).


If the war had been presented from the start as a crusade to free the suffering Iraqi's from Saddam's brutal excesses, I would have opposed it, and I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans would also have opposed it. As you note, we haven't gone to war with the generals of Myanmar or the incredibly corrupt and cruel government in the Sudan, or even the crazy Kim. Call me unfeeling, but my main concern is American lives. This is my country and these are my countrymen. I swore to defend this country and these people. I did not swear to be policeman for the world. So yes, the answer is that I would not spend any American lives just to remove Saddam from power (and I'm sure you will agree, we have done far more than that. If removing Saddam was our goal, it was accomplished 4 years ago.)

A second question. The Korean war cost 36,000+ American soldier lives, the war fighting and continuing the protection of South Korea for 54 years has cost, according to my calculation, the US roughly 1 trillion in todays dollar.

Obviously, we can't know for sure but I think the most likely scenario if we had stayed home is this. Kim Jung Il would be the ruler of South Korea, and it would be an economic basket case, and ghastly place to live. Russia would have still collapsed and China and Russia would be competitors but not outright enemies. Our national debt would be 1 trillion less and 36,000 soldier would not have died. Given my perfect crystal ball, if you were Harry Truman would you have still fought the Korean war?

Probably not. Again, perhaps I am morally deficient, but I really don't care enough who is in charge in Korea to spend 36,000 American lives deciding the question.

 

[Rustic23]

Spoken like a true isolationist!

 

[FinanceDude]

No argument here that Saddam was an evil tyrant (although GWB must be closing in on him for sheer number of violent deaths caused). But now you have a war searching for a justification. It was sold to us as a war to defend the US against the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam and as retribution for 9/11. Neither of the alleged predicates was true, and the evidence is fairly convincing that the Bush administration knew them not to be true prior to the start of the war. (And, frankly, even if Saddam had WMD's, the evidence was insufficient to show that he was threatening to use them on us or crazy enough to even think about it. We have far more WMD's than anyone else and have shown the propensity to use them. We could easily turn him and his country into a parking lot.).

man, for an ex-military guy, you sure seem bitter......... I guess you were either forced into it, or had some horrible experiences while in the service........

If the war had been presented from the start as a crusade to free the suffering Iraqi's from Saddam's brutal excesses, I would have opposed it, and I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans would also have opposed it. As you note, we haven't gone to war with the generals of Myanmar or the incredibly corrupt and cruel government in the Sudan, or even the crazy Kim. Call me unfeeling, but my main concern is American lives. This is my country and these are my countrymen. I swore to defend this country and these people. I did not swear to be policeman for the world. So yes, the answer is that I would not spend any American lives just to remove Saddam from power (and I'm sure you will agree, we have done far more than that. If removing Saddam was our goal, it was accomplished 4 years ago.)

The problem with your thinking is that the US has been the policeman for the world for a long time.

Probably not. Again, perhaps I am morally deficient, but I really don't care enough who is in charge in Korea to spend 36,000 American lives deciding the question.

I posed this question to my dad, the Korean War vet. His response:

At the time, we thought we were helping the South Koreans....... What made a lot of us mad as NOT FINISHING the job, we became political pawns on the process............. They called it a "police action", we thought we were fighting a war........

 

[Gumby]

man, for an ex-military guy, you sure seem bitter......... I guess you were either forced into it, or had some horrible experiences while in the service........

Actually, I'm not bitter at all. I am very proud to have been in the military serving my country and I have nothing but respect for the young men and women who are serving today. I just want to ensure that the sacrifices they are asked to make are truly in our national interest. I find it incredibly sad to see the young faces of the dead soldiers and marines in the newspaper, while all around me the country carries on as if nothing is happening.


And now, a poem from Edgar Lee Masters' Spoon River Anthology

Knowlt Hoheimer

I WAS the first fruits of the battle of Missionary Ridge.
When I felt the bullet enter my heart
I wished I had staid at home and gone to jail
For stealing the hogs of Curl Trenary,
Instead of running away and joining the army.
Rather a thousand times the country jail
Than to lie under this marble figure with wings,
And this granite pedestal
Bearing the words, ”Pro Patria.”
What do they mean, anyway?

 

[FinanceDude]

Actually, I'm not bitter at all. I am very proud to have been in the military serving my country and I have nothing but respect for the young men and women who are serving today. I just want to ensure that the sacrifices they are asked to make are truly in our national interest. I find it incredibly sad to see the young faces of the dead soldiers and marines in the newspaper, while all around me the country carries on as if nothing is happening.

Were you not asked to make sacrifices that may NOT have been in the national interest? Not being a military man, I am just asking the question, why would you join the military if you think that the only war worth fighting was World War II......(maybe)??

DW's best friend's husband just got back from 18 months in Iraq. He said he was proud of serving his country, and that we don't get to see what good we are doing because the media is more concerned with body counts than how many Iraqi children are going to school for the first time in their lives, among other things.

His unit provided security for the convoys rumbling in and out of Baghdad, and he said he had some hairy moments..............

 

[Gumby]

Were you not asked to make sacrifices that may NOT have been in the national interest? Not being a military man, I am just asking the question, why would you join the military if you think that the only war worth fighting was World War II......(maybe)??

DW's best friend's husband just got back from 18 months in Iraq. He said he was proud of serving his country, and that we don't get to see what good we are doing because the media is more concerned with body counts than how many Iraqi children are going to school for the first time in their lives, among other things.

His unit provided security for the convoys rumbling in and out of Baghdad, and he said he had some hairy moments..............

I was an officer on a ballistic missile submarine. I believed then and still do that maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent was in the best interests of this nation. Even though it would have depressed me to no end to shoot those missiles, I trained every day to just that, and I'm sure I would have done it if ordered by the president. I could see a clear connection between what was asked of me (at least most of the time) and the national interest.

Why did I join? Because I was young and full of piss and vinegar and I thought I could serve my country, which, notwithstanding my criticisms of the government, I do love (it also didn't hurt that they paid for me to go to college). Is my attitude different today? I would like to think that age has mellowed me. When I joined the military at 18, I felt invincible. From 31 years on, I can see how fragile life is. Age has also caused me to question things, such as government policy, that I might have once accepted at face value.

I have also talked to people who have been to Iraq, and they have told similar stories about the good things they are doing. I don't doubt it one bit -- our troops are kind and caring guys and gals. But really, did we go to war so Iraqi kids could go to school? In any event, I'm glad your friend is home safe.

 

[Rustic23]

Gumby,
I would like for you to think about something. If you are right, and our enemies don't welcome the anti-war movement in the US, the no harm no foul.

However, if I am right, and our enemies take action to fan the fuel of the anti-war activist i.e. target our soldiers, then your actions contribute to the death toll then you are partially reasonable for 'the young faces of dead soldiers'

Now you are educated, which is the safer course?

 

[Rustic23]

I could see a clear connection between what was asked of me (at least most of the time) and the national interest.
quote]

This is a disturbing quote. Would you not do you duty if you disagreed with the national command authority? Hopefully this is not what you intended to infer.

 

[Gumby]

Gumby,
I would like for you to think about something. If you are right, and our enemies don't welcome the anti-war movement in the US, the no harm no foul.

However, if I am right, and our enemies take action to fan the fuel of the anti-war activist i.e. target our soldiers, then your actions contribute to the death toll then you are partially reasonable for 'the young faces of dead soldiers'

Now you are educated, which is the safer course?

A reasonable request and I will think about it, but my initial response is to ask you this -- does Joe Jihadi shoot American soldiers because he wants to encourage Gumby to protest more or simply because he wants to kill American soldiers?

 

[Gumby]

I could see a clear connection between what was asked of me (at least most of the time) and the national interest.
quote]

This is a disturbing quote. Would you not do you duty if you disagreed with the national command authority? Hopefully this is not what you intended to infer.

Apologies if I was not clear. As I said, when the launch order came, I would have launched. My comment was regarding things like brassoing the underside of my belt buckle. I'm certain you remember there were sometimes similarly stupid and pointless things the military required you to do.

 

[Rustic23]

By the way what boomer were you on. DW's brother was the first Captain of the Florida, and was in boomers his entire career. (See, while I strongly disagree with your position, we can still be civil, even friendly, I hope)

 

[Gumby]

USS George Washington and USS George Washington Carver. (I never take disagreement as a personal attack. I am political poles apart from some of my closest friends and virtually all of my relatives. If we all thought the same way, wouldn't that be dull.)