Is it worth the lives?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rearden
Your link was discussing the War on Terror. You know, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll assume your non-answer is a "no".

So what is your idea of how the West can go into Pakistan and fight the Taliban and al Qaeda without causing a revolution, one we won't like, in Pakistan?

You can assume whatever you like, but my answer was quite clear. "The war on terror" is political rhetoric. The invasion of Aghanistan was a military action.

And I guess you probably aren't aware that the Pakistani government is in place because of a coup. They weren't duly elected. They may or may not have majority support. They are not beholden to an electorate to support popular opinion. The military dictatorship of Pakistan has the ability to create any story they need to support actions in Waziristan. Musharraf knows well how to prosecute a war against OBL and his supporters. He hasn't been persuaded to do so. but why not? The US has the power to grant wishes. Maybe it's just the fact that the administration hasn't a clue how to be negotiators.

Go into Pakistan to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda? We've already done it. With minor success. We should have done more so that the 'message' the president is always talking about sending would have been: attack America and pay the price.

[Rearden]

An extremely naive response by weenie. Jeeez.
Musharraf is a weak dictator, with both the military and intelligence services barely supporting his regime. He absolutely does not have "the ability to create any story they need to support actions in Waziristan". Every "story" they have told of Pakistani missile attacks against target houses in Waziristan have been quickly exposed as US strikes, whether they were or not.

You are so wrong on every level. There isn't a serious analyst of any ilk who believes that the US can "go into Pakistan to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda" without serious consequences to Musharraf's regime.

[Nader]

Stupid

If Greg LeMond got a hair up his azz and ordered 150K cyclists to ride across a trap shooting range, and 3K died in 5 years, then yeah, those are unacceptable losses and cycling across trap ranges should cease, and Greg LeMond should be sanctioned.

This is being compared to 3.5K accidental deaths out of how many millions of cyclists who ride of their free will, avoiding harm's way?

Stupid

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Nader
Stupid

If Greg LeMond got a hair up his azz and ordered 150K cyclists to ride across a trap shooting range, and 3K died in 5 years, then yeah, those are unacceptable losses and cycling across trap ranges should cease, and Greg LeMond should be sanctioned.

This is being compared to 3.5K accidental deaths out of how many millions of cyclists who ride of their free will, avoiding harm's way?

Stupid

So it's not the number of lives lost that bothers you, it's more of a ratio thing with you? It's not how many people die that matters, it's how many of how many that die that matters. No sense in saving those 3,500 lives because they are part of a larger group. Interesting.

[Superman]

Dubya did not make a deliberate decision to kill bicyclists. Also, killing bicyclists does not help Dubya get his name in history books.

Those are the differences, as I see it.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Didn't Bush fall off his bike early in his first term? Could explain everything.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
Dubya did not make a deliberate decision to kill bicyclists. Also, killing bicyclists does not help Dubya get his name in history books.

Those are the differences, as I see it.

It has nothing to do with motivation or causes, simply the value of human life and our ability to priotect it. Either the motivation to stop the war is to save our soldiers lives or it's political, or it's a combination. Why is there no motivation to save the cyclists?

The answer is simple, it's not about saving lives...it's ALL politics. I am not even saying that's wrong exactly, just that I'd like some honesty in the debate.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
.... Why is there no motivation to save the cyclists?
.

Is there a pending ammendment requiring all DC politicians to ride bicycles?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by lendaddy


The answer is simple, it's not about saving lives...it's ALL politics. I am not even saying that's wrong exactly, just that I'd like some honesty in the debate.

all this panty-wadding for THAT? That's your point?!

You are slipping my friend.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
all this panty-wadding for THAT? That's your point?!

You are slipping my friend.

I prefer "free falling".

I am glad that you concede my point though, in the end that's all I ever wanted.

But seriously it's no small point. Ever anti war post, article or conversation is laced with the guilt of the 3,500 lives "wasted". In reality there is no genuine concern beyond the abilty to use them as a prybar.

Again, this does not mean they feel no empathy or don't care only that it's not a true motivation as they claim.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I only agreed that you made a point.

[island911]

Great thread, LD. Y a really got the Lib's in a quandary. --squirm squirm...

I think that a bit of spoon-fed perspective is good for'em. ...even if most of it got smugged on their faces.

[speeder]

Let me see if I can make my position so clear that even a tree stump could understand it:

I was 100% opposed to invading Iraq before even one single American or innocent Iraqi life was lost. I did not believe for a second that Iraq was behind 9/11 or was any threat to America, and did not consider it worth one (1) good life lost. If we could kill Saddam and his sons somehow with a laser-guided bomb, great. I could care less about his life and he deserves to die. But no more than a lot of other bad actors in the world. (Africa, anyone)? I was not worried about his presumed chemical weapons, any use of such against the West or Israel would guarantee his immediate demise.

And yes, I care about the lives lost. Deeply. I care about one single Iraqi baby or one single U.S. Marine or soldier, even if it is someone who would be my smart-ass adversary here on this board mocking my views. I mean this whole-heartedly. If you don't believe me, you are cynical beyond hope. The loss of a young person, (or anyone), that you love is a life-changing tragedy that is usually the worst thing that other family members ever experience in this earthly existence. If it happens in a road accident, (bicycle), it would be horrific but at least possibly explained by the "act of God/his time to go" clause. To have a young son or daughter die in the occupation of Iraq that never should have happened and that's been horribly and incompetently mismanaged by fools who cannot change course FOR POLITICAL REASONS would give me brain cancer or suicide. It would be the worst thing imaginable. How anyone can be alright with it, just because they are not your relatives, is stupifying. You are using their deaths for your lame partisan "argument" on this internet board.

The supposed difference between the West and Israel is the value that we place on human life. I fully understand that when someone volunteers for the military they are agreeing to fight if called upon, but there is an implicit understanding in the civilised nations that they will not be used as cannon fodder or kept in an insanely dangerous place with no clear mission or for some goofy, mad political scientist experiment like the neocons hatched in Iraq. It's as if they said, "we have this powerful military at our disposal now and an agenda we've been dying to implement for ages, this is our chance. Let's hope it goes well, but if it doesn't, hey, that's the breaks..."

With other people's lives and tax money.

[KFC911]

I'm neither a Democrat or liberal, and I couldn't have said it better Denis!

[kach22i]

Originally posted by speeder
cannot change course FOR POLITICAL REASONS

They are stuck, but we are not..................we can change our course and our leaders.

Vote.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by speeder
How anyone can be alright with it, just because they are not your relatives, is stupifying. You are using their deaths for your lame partisan "argument" on this internet board.

Denis, I am not using their deaths for anything, I am railing against those that are. That's the point, I'm in complete agreement.

I sit here wondering how you came to that conclusion. And just to help me figure out how I'm communicating so poorly, what exactly do you interpret me as using their deaths for?

I ask only that the war be debated on its merits or lack there of without the feigned emotional outrage. Again, that doesn't mean that they don't care or that they are not deeply empathetic when faced with it, only that they are lying when they claim it is a major factor in their motivations to end the war. Which I maintain are purely political.

[lendaddy]

FWIW, what "the" said about the casualty count being perfectly fair game in a pro/anti war discussion stuck in my head last night and I gave it some thought. It goes without saying that of course he's right, but that's not what we're talking about here. I'm not asking that we not mention the deaths or that they not be a metric for success or failure.

In a rational discussion one could look at historical casualty rates and have a fair argument over where this war stands and what should have been expected etc... That is not what is happening here.

If you find yourself defending the war in any way you are lambasted with the guilt of lives lost, as if zero was a possibility. Not a rational argument that they are unusually high for the mission, just the guilt stick for it's own sake. This is actually a fair approach if you are against ALL war, if that's your internal philosophy then the argument is genuine. Again, here that is not the case.

[the]

Originally posted by lendaddy

If you find yourself defending the war in any way you are lambasted with the guilt of lives lost, as if zero was a possibility. Not a rational argument that they are unusually high for the mission, just the guilt stick for it's own sake. This is actually a fair approach if you are against ALL war, if that's your internal philosophy then the argument is genuine. Again, here that is not the case.

I'm curious why you feel it IS a fair approach if one is against ALL wars, but it's not a fair approach if one opposed to this particular war and is making the argument with regard to this particular war.

Do you view it as a fair approach if one is against ALL (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars?

Help me to understand that distinction you are drawing.

[kach22i]

Lendaddy, just imagine these are the streets your kids have to play in.









If this war is so great and we are doing so much good, move out of Michigan and take your family over there to live.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the
I'm curious why you feel it IS a fair approach if one is against ALL wars, but it's not a fair approach if one opposed to this particular war and is making the argument with regard to this particular war.

Do you view it as a fair approach if one is against ALL (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars?

Help me to understand that distinction you are drawing.

If one is a pacifist and truly anti-war then their position is that all war is wrong and thus the loss of lives is their "proof". They make no distinctions between wars run by their party or the other party, war to them is wrong period and thus they can be genuine in saying the loss off life alone is reason to end one.

In this case we have folks that back our action in Afghanistan, Clintons various mini wars, and will no doubt support the future military acts of a future president from their party. They did not and will not agonize publicly that those acts should not have taken place due to the casualties. This is hypocrisy.

If a war is wrong because 3,500 men have died, then how can you ever support another military action with unavoidable loss of life?

When we started this deal we knew there would be casualties, it was unavoidable. If there were 350 deaths instead of 3,500 their song would be the same. It's not that they argue the casualties are too high for the environment or mission, it's not an argument at all...just a cheap shot guilt trip to paint the opposition as monsters for political gain.