Americans, not politicians, hold power to change Iraq war

[jkm2500 0]

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2006/03/21/opinions/696254

I think that this may be a little misguided.

Text of a letter that I emailed:
In the editorial about Senator McCain's speech, Dianna Nanez claims that America must come together to come up with a plan to get our soldiers out of harms way. However, she needs to know one thing, a good number of our soldiers want to be in harms way. As a veteran of OIF1, I know what I wanted. I wanted to be in harms way if it means that my family might be a little safer at home. I would rather bring the fight to the enemy than wait for the enemy to show up in my hometown. The real question that all americans need to ask is, "what value do I place on the lives of my loved ones?" For me the answer to that question is that I value their lives more than that of the enemy. I value the lives of my family more than the lives of people who are willing to kill, torture, maim, intimidate, harrass and blow up their own people. Being in Iraq is not the best situation, but it is worlds better than having terrorists operating in the USA. Let us not forget the cost of civilians on 9/11.

It is incorrect to believe that the insurgents that are fighting over in Iraq are logical thinkers. Their minds are clouded by a religion that declares anyone not of their faith "infidels". If they truly wanted peace in the world they would approach the soldiers and help fight those willing to destroy the peace process. But, in my opinion the fight will go on ad infinitum, as long as there are people willing to die for allah.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Being in Iraq is not the best situation, but it is worlds better than having terrorists operating in the USA.

The underlying assumption here is that the first will prevent the second. The whole argument begs that very question.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

The underlying assumption here is that the first will prevent the second. The whole argument begs that very question.

I concur with that statement. However, what position would you rather be in....mine and be wrong, or yours and be wrong?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[n23x 0]

Some christians (small c ) use the same arguement. It's not a good one.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 2,425]

>mine and be wrong, or yours and be wrong?

Personally, I would rather be at risk of an attack than to _cause_ the attack.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Personally, I would rather be at risk of an attack than to _cause_ the attack.

That is interesting. Why would you rather suffer the casualties up front? I am curious the reasoning.


In the current situation, without debate on the speculation, given the intel, most would have attacked.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[Nightingale 0]

Because whether they're US citizens or from somewhere else, human beings are still human beings. I'd rather risk being attacked than to go out and attack someone because they MIGHT hurt me. If a citizen does that here, it's called assault (or murder!). You have to be in imminent danger of being harmed. Why is it okay for the government, but not the private citizen?

If you attack someone because they might attack you, there will definitely be an attack, and somebody (the other party, or you yourself) is going to get hurt. If you are at risk for an attack, but do nothing until you are absolutely certain that an attack is imminent, there may never be an attack at all.

[billvon 2,425]

>Why would you rather suffer the casualties up front?

?? I would rather NOT suffer casualties up front. I am describing two choices:

1. Concentrate on defense. Lose no one. Risk a later attack that kills 3000.

2. Strike pre-emptively. Lose 3000 soldiers. Encourage a later attack that kills 3000.

I believe you have a third option in mind, which is:

3. Strike pre-emptively. Lose 3000 soldiers. Prevent a later attack.

1) and 3) are similar in the number of people lost. But there is value (I believe) in not killing a lot of people, and we are rapidly coming to see that 2) is more likely than 3) in any case.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

If you attack someone because they might attack you, there will definitely be an attack, and somebody (the other party, or you yourself) is going to get hurt. If you are at risk for an attack, but do nothing until you are absolutely certain that an attack is imminent, there may never be an attack at all.

In the US this is called self defense. Plenty of questionable cases have stood up to scrutiny in the good ol USA. In the Iraq scenario, we believed(or the government believed) that there was sufficient reason to make a decision to go to war. Self-defense plea.

I am sure that you have heard the saying "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

1) and 3) are similar in the number of people lost. But there is value (I believe) in not killing a lot of people, and we are rapidly coming to see that 2) is more likely than 3) in any case.

What data supports this? If we pull out of Iraq do you think that the people seeking to do us harm are just going to put down their weapons and go home?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

If we pull out of Iraq do you think that the people seeking to do us harm are just going to put down their weapons and go home?

no, not after all we've done.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

If you attack someone because they might attack you, there will definitely be an attack, and somebody (the other party, or you yourself) is going to get hurt. If you are at risk for an attack, but do nothing until you are absolutely certain that an attack is imminent, there may never be an attack at all.

In the US this is called self defense. Plenty of questionable cases have stood up to scrutiny in the good ol USA. In the Iraq scenario, we believed(or the government believed) that there was sufficient reason to make a decision to go to war. Self-defense plea.

I am sure that you have heard the saying "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

Um... no. A basic legal definition of Self defense is: "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm."

You can't go shooting someone because you think they'll shoot you next week. If you have a reasonable belief that they are going to shoot you right now, you may have a good chance at acquittal because of self defense.

[billvon 2,425]

>If we pull out of Iraq do you think that the people seeking to do us
>harm are just going to put down their weapons and go home?

If we stay in Iraq, can we kill enough people that the remainder will stop hating us? How many members of an Iraqi family must you arrest or kill before the remainder no longer hates you?

We are creating a country of people who hate our guts. Not because of religious differences, but because we are torturing and killing them. You think that is going to lead to more or less support for Al Qaeda the next time they plan a 9/11?

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

If we stay in Iraq, can we kill enough people that the remainder will stop hating us? How many members of an Iraqi family must you arrest or kill before the remainder no longer hates you?

We are creating a country of people who hate our guts. Not because of religious differences, but because we are torturing and killing them. You think that is going to lead to more or less support for Al Qaeda the next time they plan a 9/11?

Tis true....however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out? We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....it got us 9/11. Shall we continue to allow ourselves to be bullied into the corner by a few...radicals. We should be out there hunting them down. Death is the only end that some will understand. The only difference that we can make is where they meet their maker. I dont want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of american civilians. Which is likely to happen.

which goes back to my initial question; what is the value of the lives of your loved ones? How many people are we willing to kill to insure that they remain safe?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[Guest 1010]

Quote

I'd rather risk being attacked than to go out and attack someone because they MIGHT hurt me.

yes, you will accept that risk, but how much risk are you willing to put others in before you attack to remove a threat?

Quote

If a citizen does that here, it's called assault (or murder!). You have to be in imminent danger of being harmed. Why is it okay for the government, but not the private citizen?

If it will take me 12 months to muster a force across the world to influence events there, and our best guess is that a threat will exist in 13 months, would you call that imminent? And remember our intel isn't perfect. Ghaddafi was way ahead in his nuclear capability than what we thought, SH behind. Which way should you err?

Quote

If you are at risk for an attack, but do nothing until you are absolutely certain that an attack is imminent, there may never be an attack at all.

or a city in this country, might end up gone. What will you say then ... oops, sorry?

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[billvon 2,425]

>however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out?

You really think that we are at greater risk of attack with our troops here, defending the US, than if they are all in Iraq and Afghanistan? An odd way of looking at things.

If we are attacked with a nuclear weapon (which is a worst-case scenario; the sort of thing that might kill your family) do you really, honestly think it will come from an Iraqi insurgent and not North Korea, who we have been ignoring in favor of an endless war in Iraq?

>what is the value of the lives of your loved ones? How many people are
>we willing to kill to insure that they remain safe?

Conversely, are you willing to see your loved ones die as a result of this war? Is any war worth that?

There is no question that the war MAY help prevent another attack by killing some terrorists. It also MAY encourage one by creating many, many more people who want your family dead. If the odds are the same both ways, I would prefer to take the path that does not lead to 2500 US soldiers dead, tens of thousands of US soldiers maimed and many times more Iraqis dead. And I see no compelling evidence (other than the same tired rhetoric) that the war _will_ reduce our chances of being attacked. Indeed, from the objective evidence we've seen, we've made the world a more dangerous place.

[Nightingale 0]

Or, you attack someone because you think they might attack you, and whether they had plans to actually attack you or not, you've now pissed him off AND all of his friends, making an attack a lot more likely than it was before your so-called pre-emptive attack.

The point is that you never know in situations like this. When you are truly acting in self defense, you KNOW. I've been in a situation where I had to defend myself. Had I turned around and hit the guy because I thought he was maybe following me, I'd probably have been arrested. When I hit him AFTER he tried to do something to me, had I called the cops, I probably wouldn't have been the one in the back of the police car.

There weren't many americans objecting to our decision to enter WWII, after Pearl Harbor. We knew who attacked us, and we struck back. With 9-11, we were attacked by an organization (and I use that term loosely), not a country. There was no real, clear enemy, which is why many people have a problem with this war. We're not sure if we're "pre-emptively striking" the wrong people.

[Guest 1010]

>If we are attacked with a nuclear weapon (which is a worst-case scenario; the sort of thing that might kill your family)

I'd think bio could be far worse. If a city disappears the country would recover. The amount of time to recover just depends on what city goes away. NY, DC, yes those would be bad. Many others, like New Orleans, painful, but not in any way a threat to the existence of other parts of the country.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[Guest 1010]

>The point is that you never know in situations like this.

Then others should respect or fear you; don't let them think they may succeed, or they may try. As you can see I think the analogy between personal defense and what this country should do to defend itself falls apart pretty quickly.

>There weren't many americans objecting to our decision to enter WWII, after Pearl Harbor.

And it was a political decision as well to not enter that war earlier; millions had been put at risk ... Japan invaded China in 1937, Poland happened in 1939 ... our first overtly offensive move was in 1942, and though moving in the right direction, industry didn't really ramp up until after Dec 7th, years after the war overseas started. Politically untenable before December 7th, yes, but our tardy decision to enter that war cost MILLIONS of people their lives.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[Guest 1010]

>With 9-11, we were attacked by an organization (and I use that term loosely), not a country. There was no real, clear enemy, which is why many people have a problem with this war. We're not sure if we're "pre-emptively striking" the wrong people.

I agree it is not an "easy" war. It is a very difficult one. I wish were weren't engaged in a war. Unfortunately that is the situation in which we find ourselves, and a war that if we lose or retreat from, I suspect that the current loss of life in Iraq will be dwarfed by that future, which is why I think we should stay. Our pullout from Vietnam and the associated deaths of millions in the following turmoil are what I think of when people say we should pull out of Iraq.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

[freethefly 6]

While thousands upon thousands are maimed or killed in Iraq, Bin Laden (the culprit behind 9-11, you do remember him, do you?) is alive and laughing at the US. How does the unwarrented killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq defend the US? Pull your head out of the governments ass and face the fact that our country screwed up and now and in the future will pay for it. We are on the top of the list of the most hated people in the world. I for one am deeply ashamed of our government. The US would have got much more respect if it stayed the course and went after Bin Laden and brought him down. Instead Bush sent thousands to their death for no other reason than he is a weak and immoral person and on the same level as Bin Laden. He has only encourage more to consider striking the US. The next hit on our country? Blame Bush.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out?

You really think that we are at greater risk of attack with our troops here, defending the US, than if they are all in Iraq and Afghanistan? An odd way of looking at things.

I just wanted to address this point - the military stationed on U.S. bases are not positioned for a defense effort. They can be deployed to where they are needed (a la disaster relief efforts), but they are not on an 'action footing' on-base.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2006/03/21/opinions/696254

I think that this may be a little misguided.

Text of a letter that I emailed:
In the editorial about Senator McCain's speech, Dianna Nanez claims that America must come together to come up with a plan to get our soldiers out of harms way. However, she needs to know one thing, a good number of our soldiers want to be in harms way. As a veteran of OIF1, I know what I wanted. I wanted to be in harms way if it means that my family might be a little safer at home. I would rather bring the fight to the enemy than wait for the enemy to show up in my hometown. The real question that all americans need to ask is, "what value do I place on the lives of my loved ones?" For me the answer to that question is that I value their lives more than that of the enemy. I value the lives of my family more than the lives of people who are willing to kill, torture, maim, intimidate, harrass and blow up their own people. Being in Iraq is not the best situation, but it is worlds better than having terrorists operating in the USA. Let us not forget the cost of civilians on 9/11.

It is incorrect to believe that the insurgents that are fighting over in Iraq are logical thinkers. Their minds are clouded by a religion that declares anyone not of their faith "infidels". If they truly wanted peace in the world they would approach the soldiers and help fight those willing to destroy the peace process. But, in my opinion the fight will go on ad infinitum, as long as there are people willing to die for allah.

Quote

Their minds are clouded by a religion that declares anyone not of their faith "infidels".

But enough about Christianity.....

This sounds like the martyr's manifesto. Do you actually believe we are more safe due to the war or due to increased security here? What happens to your theory of we are attacked again? We can't sustain this forever, so when we do pull out, are we less safe? Your assertions have no exit strategy, hence aren't realistic.