A different Iraq poll: How much is "completing the mission" worth to YOU?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Az
Why not? It's a helluva better way to die than of a heart attack at 80. Most chances are that I will not be able to accomplish a deed of similar importance in my life otherwise.

And no, I am not some sort of hero. Ordinary people ( which are always the real heroes ) jumped on bullets and grenades to save a small bunch of people - and died in anonymity for centuries. Taking a bullet to save an entire country ( even in anonymity ) is a much easier choice.

It is true that people under stress do exceptional stuff. Contrary to popular belief, sacrificing life to save another is relatively common in war or crisis. It's not less heroic for that, of course.

But you are under no pressure. It's very weird to rationally decide to sacrifice one's life for greater good, especially if you are still not 80 and about to die. So weird I don't even believe you

[Ted Striker]

I'd do it.

But if I had a wife and/or kids I don't know if would feel so gung ho about it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Az
Hey, Michael, what's up? You haven't been around the forums seriously for ages, have you? welcome back.


To the point:

The question is completely hypothetical - there is no way a single person's actions could secure the "completion of the mission" - presumably a safe and 'democratic' iraq - by paying up with their limbs or lives.

but if I could ensure peace and freedom in Iraq by myself, I would take a bullet.

It's always hypothetical - you have no idea, really, what "the mission" is, whether it will ever be completed, whether it will be redefined for political expediency (notice how few of our NeoCon fanboys are still talking about making Iraq a model for democracy in the ME and using at as a basis for projecting our power and reining in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al).

The simple fact is, as a grunt, you'll never know if it really meant a goddamned thing.

[Az]

Precisely. That's why a question about losing a limb for Iraq is meaningless - Many people will die without securing the peace, and hopefully a whole lot more in the US military will see the success of the mission, while being unharmed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO
This poll is based on a single-minded premise. It takes no consideration for the implications of not completing the mission. Weather or not, this is a valid point to be contemplated is up to the individual. Further, The results of an "incomplete" mission are vastly debatable as well.

Implications for completing, or failing to complete, the mission depend entirely on what the mission is. In detail, not at the level of sound bites and slogans.
Right now, we have zero evidence of terrorist operations in the US being disrupted as a result of US invasion of Iraq. We do have evidence of Iranian and North Korean intransigence in continuing to develop nuclear weapons programs, and Syria, rather than being intimidated, is essentially saying "yeah, sure, whatever - you can't even secure your borders, what do you want from us?"

Meanwhile, we're running record budget deficits, record trade deficits, falling short of recruiting goals, etc. The "terrorists" (and they're a minority of those fighting us, which include factional fighters, nationalists, mercenaries, and just pissed off Iraqis and Islamists in general) are inflicting damage at a distance, because they are affecting our economic power and military power, and thus our ability to influence the world as a whole.

To explain a bit further...If "completing" the mission means that the likelyhood of having a terrorist incident that kills my son is greatly reduced vs. an "incomplete" mission meaning that he would mostlikely be killed by a terrorist, then you are damn right that I would die to prevent that. If "completing" the mission means that we just end up with a different dictator in Iraq and nothing really changes vs. an "incomplete" mission meaning we just end up with a different dictator in Iraq and nothing really changes then we should get the hell out now. Without a distinction on what the mission is and what can realistically be accomplished then this poll has no value.

Please tell that to President Bush. He's the one who has failed to adequately define "the mission" in terms of any specific, achievable results.

Further, the debate on the mission and the possible results continues...with many varying opinions. "Opinions" being an operative word. This further adds to the invalidity of the poll.

The only thing "invalid" about the poll is that it doesn't present any false illusion of certainty and results. How many KIA so far have had real knowledge that their deaths resulted in anything of lasting significance other than pain and emptiness within their families and units?

My point was solely to question how many who are still gung ho about this ill-defined (at best) mission, and letting others die for it, are willing to belly up to the bar themselves.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Az
Precisely. That's why a question about losing a limb for Iraq is meaningless - Many people will die without securing the peace, and hopefully a whole lot more in the US military will see the success of the mission, while being unharmed.

It's not meaningless if its your limb at risk. For most of the ChickenHawk crowd, it's meaningless because they're only willing to risk the lives and limbs of others.

[GePap]

I am more than willing to continue fighting to "complete the mission", whatever that is, until everyone who is willing to die to do so does die. Then, when we get to more reasonable individuals, perhaps we can accept that more blood is not worth it, and we can leave.

After all, who am I to deny people martydom for the "mission"? Of course, as long as those of us who don't even know what the **** the mission is don't suffer.

[Ted Striker]

THis is all a good point, we don't have a defined mission at all.

We were told "Mission Accomplished" 2 1/2 years ago so WTF?

[Az]

It's not meaningless if its your limb at risk. For most of the ChickenHawk crowd, it's meaningless because they're only willing to risk the lives and limbs of others.

Yes, it is meaningless. It's not a hyperbole that demonstrates a point - it's a materially different question, that tries to illustrate a point. It's sort of a strawman.

I am more than willing to continue fighting to "complete the mission", whatever that is, until everyone who is willing to die to do so does die. Then, when we get to more reasonable individuals, perhaps we can accept that more blood is not worth it, and we can leave.

After all, who am I to deny people martydom for the "mission"? Of course, as long as those of us who don't even know what the **** the mission is don't suffer.

The point about lacking a clearly defined objective is right, however the post is written obnoxiously, Gepap.

[GePap]

I have no problem with people standing in line to get killed. And if there are enough of them to continue this sad little game, who am I to rain on thier martial parade?

[Az]

Suicide

[Zkribbler]

Just what is the "mission?"

Originally, it was prevent Saddam from giving WMD (which he didn't have) to his good buddy, Usama bin Ladin (whom he hated).

Then it bacame "Regime Change." Mission Accomplished.

Now, it's . . . ???

If we're waiting for peace, it's gonna be a looong wait.

The Iraqis have 1 Level 1 battalion (self sufficient) and 86 Level 2 battalions (need support in matters such as intelligence gathering and medical evaculation.)

It's time to begin a staged withdrawl, with major combat units out by election day, 2006.

(I have no relatives over there. But my best friend's kid (who's named after me) is over there.)

[GePap]

The general idea always was that somehow, through the use of American military might, we would be able to build Iraq into a modern, pro-US liberal (in the European sense) regime that would become an example to other arab regimes in the area and prove a counterweight to the attraction of salafist extremism.

Whether that was ever even remotely possible is irrelevant to the point that the admin. could have never in a million years sold the war to the American public under that premise, so they had to make Iraq into a clear and present danger to give them the political cover to act.

Too bad they never were evn close to being prepared or having a sensible plan to achieve the neo-con dream. Now we are stuck in damage control.

idiots.

[Chemical Ollie]

The re-election of the regime that fooled you into this war stands as a monument of the stupidity of America.

I entered the OT forum to protest against the upcoming war, 3 years ago. One thing I remember was Ted posting "Britney with an American flag" pictures in every Iraq thread, and I think that symbolizes the average American view back then: "Let's go kick some ass, just because we can". I told you that you could clearly see on the facial expression of Colin Powel that he did not belive his own words when he spoke to the UN about the "evidence". A whole bunch of Americans told me I was wrong. Now we know the truth.

Told you so. You f*cked up. You pay, in blood and dollars.

[MOBIUS]

Me too. Been saying this **** all along...

Notice all the chickenhawks are too cowardly even to defend their invasion of Iraq in a forum thread, let alone actually risk life and limb over there...

Where are the chickenhawks now!?