Our biggest problem, the war in Iraq?

[LifeHiscost]

Every death of a person, especially intentional, is a regrettable and sorrowful incident. Should deaths in Irag be our greatest concern, when our efforts to help events improve might be far more successful, if exercised in the U.S. by U.S. citizens?

In the same period of time that 4000 deaths to those who fight for our freedom occurred as a result of the Iraqi war, approximately 133,000 died by gunfire in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Maybe we're fighting the wrong war.

"But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

1 John 3:17 NASB

Regards!

[Bravus]

'tis true. But perhaps something like 133,000 Iraqis have died in the same time. Had the US taken care of freedom (from violence) at home *instead* of starting this war, they'd all be still alive.

[Dr. Shane]

Freedom has a very high price. Regardless if America had freed Iraq or had they fought their own civil war to overthrow Saddam, there would have been much bloodshed. Who is to say there has been more because American boots were on the ground than had an organized group of Iraqis been armed and done the work themselves? We will never know. We do know that America got rid of a bad dictator that supported terrorism, planned to resume his WMD programs and violated the human rights of his own people. Does anyone think that could have been accomplished by the Iraqi people without significant loss of life?

[Bravus]

Castro no longer rules Cuba. Saddam would eventually have no longer ruled Iraq. Without these deaths. And the Iraqi people did not request this horribly expensive service on their behalfs.

[Dr. Shane]

Cubans are still not free. Sadly, freedom rarely comes free. There are situations when it has. The US has given freedom to its territories without the territories have to shed their blood in a war for independence. In fact, Cuba's freedom came after te US took possession of them from Spain.

Like divorce, God hates war. In a perfect world neither would exist. In a sinful world, there are times that both must occur. Saddam is to blame for the Iraq War. All the blood shed and hearts broken are Saddam's fault, not the US. The US effort has been noble.

[Bravus]

We can go around and around on this forever, so I'll just leave it up to those who read this thread to make up their own minds on the issue. I've looked at it from all angles, and I know what I think about it.

[Jeannieb43]

And I'm with you, Bravus. Nobody can honestly support this needless war, no matter how much they love GWB.

Four THOUSAND American soldiers have died in this "war." More than in the whole Second World War.

This is not a war -- because there's no perceptible enemy. Americans are just going out there, to fight "terrorism." And terrorism will continue to arise again, anywhere and everywhere; that's just the nature of terrorism.

[Stan]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_soldiers_died_in_World_War_2

Shows between 300,000 -500,000 Soldiers died in WW2

[John317]

To put the number of casualties in perspective:

The US suffers over 40,000 deaths every year due to auto accidents.

There are over 500,000 American deaths every year due to cancer.

The United States suffered 58, 217 deaths in the Vietnam conflict.

By contrast, so far the US has suffered about 4,000 deaths in Iraq.

No one wants any American to die in a war or in an accident, but the truth is, that the US military suffers hundreds of deaths every year even when not involved in war.

Consider the following info:

You will note that the military’s current casualty rate is just about at or even under that of the average during peace time.

One has to take into account that the size of the military has contracted over the years, thanks to Mr. Clinton.

Still, for the year of peace 1980, the fatality rate (2,159,630 divided into 2,392) was .11%.

Compare that number to the fatality rate near the height of the “insurgency” in 2006 (1,378,014 divided into 1,858) which was .13%.

And with the “surge” of course these numbers have gone down tremendously in the last year.

[Dr. Shane]

I think a major grievance of the anti-war crowd is the number of Iraqi civilians that have died in the conflict. My point is that a comparable number would have died had the Iraqis rose up and overthrown Saddam themselves - which many wanted to do. It is estimated that Saddam killed one million Iraqis while he was in power. So they certainly had motive and justification to overthrow him.

[Bravus]

That is probably true, Shane, but it's an irrelevant comparison because that was not going to happen. If the Iraqi people had wanted to get rid of Saddam, and been willing to pay that cost, then they could/should have done so. But they choose not to, and had their choice ripped away from them by the Americans.

How can you not understand that it is *wrong* for the Americans to choose death on behalf of, and for the Iraqis when they did not choose it for themselves? How arrogant is it to assume that Americans know what Iraqis need more than the Iraqis do themselves?

[John317]

Americans didn't assume that we know what Iraqis need. We went into Iraq on the basis of what was determined to be a national security issue. We were wrong about the urgency of that issue, but once we're there, we can't simply turn back the clock and pretend that we can simply leave in a way that is unfair to Iraqis and that will be damaging to US interests in the region.

Even if Obama is elected president, he won't be able to pull American troops out immediately as he has sometimes promised.

By the way, when it comes to Israel's response to Iran's nuclear plans, they have to realize that they have almost no chance of bombing Iran if Oboma is president. Therefore, I would look for Iran's nuclear reactors to be destroyed sometime between now and November, either by US forces or by Israel's. If it's going to be done, it is better that the Americans do it, because an Israeli strike would cause a severe strain in the already strained relations between Israel and their Muslim neighbors.

[Bravus]

Iran don't *have* nuclear reactors. They have centrifuge farms for enriching uranium, and that's about it. There is no nuclear weapons threat from Iran - the Americans' own intelligence reports clearly say so. In the same post you admit to the mistake and the mess in Iraq, then talk about making a much worse mistake and mess in Iran with the same kind of unilateral military action!

[John317]

If there is no threat, I think it would be wise of Iran to let the UN inspectors and US inspectors see that for themselves. They don't want to make the same mistake that Saddam made and assume that the US won't take action. If the US believes that Iran poses a nuclear threat to either the US or Israel, their centrifuge farms won't be around for much longer.

I'm not saying I agree with everything the US is doing. I'm just talking about what I believe will happen, and what I think Iran should do if it wants to avoid being attacked.

Did you notice that the US moved a second aircraft carrier into that area recently?

I've no doubt that you know much more than I do about Iran's nuclear capabilities. I got the following off the Internet. Is it accurate?

"Iran's nuclear program has included several research sites, a uranium mine, a nuclear reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant.

"Iran's first nuclear power plant, Bushehr I, is expected to be operational in March 2008 and delivering its maximum capacity to the nation's power grid by March 2009. There are no current plans to complete the Bushehr II reactor, although the construction of 19 nuclear power plants is envisaged. Iran has announced that it is working on a new 360 MWe nuclear power plant to be located in Darkhoyen. Iran has also indicated it that it will seek more medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines for the future."

[Dr. Shane]

America went into Iraq because Saddam played games with weapons inspectors and the no-fly zones for 12 years. I cannot see how someone can blame anyone other than Saddam. The reason the US believed Iraq had WMDs is because Saddam was sending out "defectors" that claimed to have detailed knowledge of his WMD program while he publicly stated he didn't have them.

[fccool]

Saddam is dead... no reason to kick a dead horse. What now? That's the question. And American people as a nation are not in charge of answering this question. Although majority wants the war over and US out, the war will be a long one as none of the current candidates considers withdrawing. I don't see any solutions other than withdrawing. Iraqis will always be hostile as long as it's occupied. It's just different mentality... can't change that in 5-10 years... and the bloodshed will only perpetuate it.