Sacrifice Update
A little over a week ago, the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq stood at 2,500. Since then, sixteen more have died and eighty-two have been wounded, bringing the numbers to 2,516 killed and 18,572 wounded as of today.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Sunday, June 25, 2006
13 Comments:
Even one death is too many for a war with a less than clear mission.
Vietnam became a problem when folks you knew were coming back in body bags. Anyone you know even wounded in Iraq?
Wake me up when we get to 20,000 dead (which we will...)
antione, "war with a less than clear mission?" We are forcing the Arabs to accept the modern world. What about this is unclear to you?
Don't forget Afghanistan, things have heated up there again; 53 this year.
What did Tony Snow say, it's only a number. Ho hum.
thirdeye: We are forcing the Arabs to accept the modern world. What about this is unclear to you?
So is *that* the goal in Iraq now? Funny, cause I never heard that justification from the Bush administration when it pressed its case for war with Iraq, or even, come to think of it, from any administration official since. At that time, they were making the case that Iraq was a threat to civilization due to its WMD and that it had to be disarmed.
Well, first of all since when does anyone have the right to use war to impose one's version of social progress on another country on another continent? That's against all principles of international law and the charter of the UN, which states, among others "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and [...] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, AND FOR THESE ENDS [...] to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest". Shouldn't the political and economic institutions of a country be up to its inhabitants? What if the dastards refuse to go along with your enlightened plan? Then what? Occupation of all Arab lands, indefinitely? "Bombings will continue until morale improves"? Or genocide?
OK, let's admit this unprecedented massive social engineering project should be the goal, and you have the right to use deadly force to enforce it. Fine. We in the wonderful world of US corporations set goals all the time. For ourselves and for others. But if you tried to set a mission for "world peace", you'd be slapped silly. We have to set SMART goals: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely. "A week should elapse between attacks against coallition troops and convoys by end of year". OK that may not be realistic, but we can assess whether we reached the goal or not, and are making any progress. When you say, "accepting the modern world", well I don't even know what you mean. Separation of church and state? Hate to break it to you, but this is something that has been disappearing in Iraq under the US occupation. Creation of a large middle class? Once again, outside of the Kurd provinces, the middle class that had managed to survive Saddam and the sanctions is fleeing Iraq en masse.
nil, multiple-choice for you:
The war in Iraq was sold to us because:
1. They had WMDs
2. Better to fight them over there than over here.
3. Chance to establish a real deocracy in the Middle East.
4. All three above.
thirdeye,
What, you don't offer me 5. Forcing the arabs to accept the modern world?
In the last 4 years, some people have invoked all of the choices above. But at the critical moment of the invasion, in his UN speech at the UN which he later described as a blot on his record and in which he failed to convince the world that force had to be used against Iraq, Colin Powell made no mention of fighting terrorists there rather than over here or establishing democracy.
Now the ever-shifting rationales for the war is a discredit to its proponents. First Saddam was a threat to its neighbours and to civilization with his WMD, then he wasn't, so oops we mean we have to fight fundamentalist Islam, oops sharia is now enshrined in the constitution and we have pro-Iranian shiite religious parties in power while militias of wackos throw acid on immodest women who have the audacity to walk in the streets without a veil, no we mean Iraq had to be made a beacon of light in the Middle-East, then PostSaddamIraq is turning into a fountainhead of horrific atrocities, it's, well gosh I don't know, we can't cut and run we can't lose face now can we?
What is it exactly that you have to show after 3 years of blood and toil, after how many hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars spent, after 100000 dead Iraqis and half a million refugees outside Iraq? That you can go (yawn) bo-o-ring, more bloodletting!
That you can go (yawn) bo-o-ring, more bloodletting!
Yes, cruel as it sounds, the American public will not react to Iraq in any meaningful way until someone they know comes back in a body bag. Meanwhile, the experiment at Arab behavior modification continues every day.
the experiment at Arab behavior modification continues every day
Dr Mengele would be proud of y'all.
thirdeye wrote:
"3. Chance to establish a real deocracy in the Middle East."
That's a very interesting typo. Did you mean democracy or theocracy? 'Cause that's what Bush and the neoCons have created. What a waste of U.S. treasure.
Very nice site! bad credit payday loan drugs causing impotence monoamine oxidase inhibitors and impotence
This won't actually have effect, I feel so.
Little doubt, the chap is certainly just.
Post a Comment
<< Home