What's the Difference?

[Drogue]

UN sanction? Economic sanctions on Iraq or sanctioning attacking Iraq if they have WMDs?

To be honest, from what I've seen on discussions and various reports, most people do not care whether the UN supports it or not. The last poll I'm aware of, about 3 weeks ago, shows that over 70% did not support war at that time, and that over 50% do not trust Blairs intelligence documents stating that Saddam has WMDs. It even went as far as that almost 50% would not support a war, even if it was proven that Saddam has WMDs. Personally, I am not convince that he has them, and I would not want war even if he did, as I don't believe he will use them. If he did use a WMD on another nation, that is justification for war in my eyes. But until then, the UK and US has no business in bombing Iraq. Indeed, I think we should remove many of the economic sanctions, and finally let the people of Iraq have some of the medication and quality of life that we enjoy.

[DinoDoc]

Where can I find the most recent polling data? The most recent one I can find is from October and it doesn't match your numbers.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


Maybe you should stop opening his threads.

Three things :
1) No one rattled your cage, Tandee
2) Maybe he should consider not being so insulting.
3) Maybe if you had remained in service, you'd have a clue to what I'm saying, rather than running your mouth in ignorance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The answer is rather simple and something David has chosen to ignore in this and other posts.

The maxim of applying overwhelming force in warfare to limit casualties applies. If war is to occur anything (within reason i.e. no WMD ethnic cleansing etc.) that is done to shorten its duration (and implicit to this is the fact that if US take casualties the hostilities will drag out) lessens the casualties to all involved.

If the intention of the post is that massive casualties will teach the US a lesson and make the US less likely to conduct aggression in the future, I think this fallacy.

So in summary if you go to war, make your aggression as forceful as you can, Shorten its duration and thereby eliminate needless suffering and casualties to all involved.

I speak not to the reasons for war moral or otherwise but simply on how war should be conducted.

[Ned]

Ogie, Massive casualties in Vietnam forced us to change our views about how to conduct military operations. This is why Powell insisted that if we go into Kuwait, we do so with overwhelming force.

But anyone who would wish another Vietnam on the United States, or for that matter, anyone else, is truly immoral. War can be just. But if fought, as you said Ogie, war must be fought in a way to minimize the loss of life on both sides.

[SlowwHand]

David ignores everything, and evidently has sucked Tandee into the whirling vortex of his whining.

BTW, David. I don't need any help with you in anything.
As far as your rattling around about Iraq, go do your own research.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue
UN sanction? Economic sanctions on Iraq or sanctioning attacking Iraq if they have WMDs?

To be honest, from what I've seen on discussions and various reports, most people do not care whether the UN supports it or not. The last poll I'm aware of, about 3 weeks ago, shows that over 70% did not support war at that time, and that over 50% do not trust Blairs intelligence documents stating that Saddam has WMDs. It even went as far as that almost 50% would not support a war, even if it was proven that Saddam has WMDs. Personally, I am not convince that he has them, and I would not want war even if he did, as I don't believe he will use them. If he did use a WMD on another nation, that is justification for war in my eyes. But until then, the UK and US has no business in bombing Iraq. Indeed, I think we should remove many of the economic sanctions, and finally let the people of Iraq have some of the medication and quality of life that we enjoy.

The nut of what you are saying is that we should have removed Saddam in '91 and not punished Iraq with sanctions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

But the numbskulls of '91 chose the route of sanctions and inspectors. It is now too late to change course.

[Boris Godunov]

Ogie, that didn't answer David's question, though.

The use of the best strategies to minimize casualties in war is irrelevant to whether or not the war itself is moral (which is indeed the question).

The simple question is why should David feel that wishing the aggressor in a war to lose that war--if he believes the aggressor to be in the wrong--be so bad?

I like to think that, were I living in Germany in 1939, I would be one of the few who believed Nazi aggression was wrong and was hoping for the defeat of the Germans in their unjust war. I would hope that Poland, Norway, France, etc. were able to beat the German army and end Hitler's quest for continental domination.

Nobody here is wishing for catastrophic U.S. losses. I don't want anyone to die over this nonsense, especially American service members. To be sacrificed on the altar of international politics is a terrible thing, and I would hold Bush accountable as a criminal were he to commit U.S. forces to attacking Iraq unjustly.

But, were we to suddenly invade Iraq tomorrow, I would indeed say the U.S. deserved to lose the war for being the unprovoked aggressor.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
Ogie, Massive casualties in Vietnam forced us to change our views about how to conduct military operations. This is why Powell insisted that if we go into Kuwait, we do so with overwhelming force.

But anyone who would wish another Vietnam on the United States, or for that matter, anyone else, is truly immoral. War can be just. But if fought, as you said Ogie, war must be fought in a way to minimize the loss of life on both sides.

Ned,

I'm glad you referred to Vietnam and yes I agree. My point is that both Vietnamese and US casualties would have been much much less if the war we engaged in was a total war with concrete objectives and not a limited one, and thereby extension anything that prolongs a war, as was the case in the Vietnam, more casulaties were needlessly caused to both sides.

I agree that the casualties we sustained caused us a temporary change in views but 20 years later (one generation) we were willing to deploy and go to war.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The nut of what you are saying is that we should have removed Saddam in '91 and not punished Iraq with sanctions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

But the numbskulls of '91 chose the route of sanctions and inspectors. It is now too late to change course.

And I say, too late now. While I think even the first Gulf War was of dubious merit, I don't believe that now, 10 years after the fact, can we rectify that particular strategic blunder by making an attack on flimsy provocation, especially since we have left Iraq relatively alone for the past 10 years.

I have no problem with a continued stance of military containment. However, the economic sanctions need to either be greatly eased or lifted, as that has what has caused more grief to the Iraqi people than anything else.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Boris,

It indeed is the crux of his question(s).

Davids posed the questions:

But my question is, why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers? Why is it OK to wish that the US conducts a bloodless (for the US) campaign, destroying the Iraqi military (and incidentally killing thousands), but not OK to wish that the US gets frustrated in its aggression, and takes several thousand (several tens of thousands, even) of casualties?

I make the assumption that if war has been engaged then as monstrous as it is it needs to be done quickly for all participants.

His questions are framed as to why it is important that casualties are minimized thereby implicitly stating that war has already been engaged.

The other arguements as to the morality of the war, should be and have been discussed ad nauseum in other posts.

[Boris Godunov]

I think your misinterpreting his question. I don't think he cares about the minimalization of casualties, I think he cares about the moral justification of the war in the first place and the victory of the aggressor.

If someone engages in war immorally (i.e. unjust aggression), then they deserve to lose the war, from a moral standpoint. Now, inevitably that will result in the aggressor suffering a lot of casualties. But that's not the same thing as actively wanting people on the aggressor's side to die.

While it may seem contradictory, I think it's a valid position, because the crux is that the aggressor shoudn't be doing what it is doing in the first place. It makes little sense to believe your country is engaging in a morally unjust war and then, once that war is embarked upon, say you hope for a victory in that war.

Strategy isn't the issue here, morality is.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No I don't think I am misinterpreting the question.

The morality of the war plays no role what so ever. If a war is engaged (short of having no war at all) the best conclusion is to make it as short as possible.

If massive casualties ensue to the aggressor, it is the equivalent of two wrongs. Massive aggressor casualties means by definition massive victims casualties as no party wins when it cmes to war. Therefore IF war is engaged it needs to be as short as possible.

I would counter and say lets for arguement sake assume that we are morally in the wrong. Massive US casulaties ensue requiring a longer occupation massive destruction of Iraqi civilians and infrastructure etc. Does the fact that the US pulled out as was the case in Vietnam make the sitaution better? Did the fact that the US was showed up erase the massive casualties of the supposedly innocent Iraqi's.

The answer is a resounding No. Two wrongs do not make a right.

One counter arguement to this is the assumption that it will prevent the aggressor nation (in this case supposedly the US) from engaing in war in the future. Vietnam shows us that effect is short term (one generation). Hence IMO it is fallacy to think this is valid. (unless of course you are French who haven't wanted to fight a war since WW1 )

The only other counter to this is that the will to wage war will cause a cessation of hostilities, in todays world of massive firepower I think by the time the general public express that will and get it to a point of action the damage will be immense.

[Inverse Icarus]

I see you point Boris, and vicariously Floyd's, but i don't agree.

I understand everything you last post said. It makes perfect sense that someone morally opposed to a certain war would seem to be hypocritical to wish for victory, but i don't like that one bit.

The only way we're going to lose is if masses of servicemen die, and that will probably only happen if saddam uses chemical / biological / nuclear weapons. I don't want to see anyone die like that, especialy voulnteers sworn to defend America.

Saddam does that TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Something needs to be done about him, that much is clear, the his people are too weak, and the balance of power of the region to fragile to do much of anything. It must be done. America can do it.

If you're morally oppopsed to the war, there is little to no chance for anyone to swing you to our side, and thats understandible. But wishing death upon your brothers doesn't fly right in my eyes. Sure, a true Marxist, humanitarian, whatever will tell you all brothers, but we all know damn well the world hasn't grown that much. The life of an American is worth more than that of an Iraqi, in my eyes, especially an Iraqi defending a despotic regime that does nothing good for it's people. Maybe you've reached a higher plane than i have Boris, Floyd, et al., but for me, I'd rather the Americans win with minimal losses.

[TCO]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


The only problems with that statement are that the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons and the only country threatening to kill great numbers of people is the United States, logistically Iraq could not attack America, only American troops that are in places they shouldn't be, Iraq was never "belligerent" toward the United States until we decided we should defend Kuwait, and, as far as I know, Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States.

But they have attacked other countries...without porvocation...and done incredible destruction...remember the burning oil wells. After the Gulf War they made an agreement. Now we are holding them to it. Like good libertarians.