Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Adventurer]

Saddam Is Dead - So Are 3,000 Americans

by Rep. Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.


Saddam Hussein is dead. So are three thousand Americans.

The regime in Iraq has been changed. Yet victory will not be declared: not only does the war go on, it's about to escalate. Obviously the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever, and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.

We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months of our war in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade, and by the time we finally got out 60,000 Americans had died. God knows we should have gotten out ten years earlier. "Troop surge" meant serious escalation.

The election is over and Americans have spoken. Enough is enough! They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite likely will occur, with bipartisan support. Up to 50,000 more troops will be sent. The goal no longer is to win, but simply to secure Baghdad! So much has been spent with so little to show for it.


http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10275

[When should the soldiers pull out, fellows?]

[cbclark4]

Yes, but only 44,000 Americans died in car accidents this year.

cbc

[Adventurer]

[mindmetoo]

Besides the irony of Bush lecturing the Iraqis that their execution of Saddam was rushed (gosh Bush never rushed anything in Iraq), I found it ironic there was criticism from his government that the hanging was done in poor taste. You know like taunting a prisoner is bad. Not like that ever happens under the American watch at Gitmo. Indeed, I always found it in poor taste and a little creepy that Bush had Saddam's pistol mounted and displayed over his fireplace. The images of the 3,000 dead should be going over his fireplace, not some phallic war trophy for another war he avoided fighting in.

[Junior]

You can't have a war without casualties, and nothing worthwhile comes easy...3000 is nothing compared to the casualties other nations are willing to sacrifice to win their causes. Or is a white American life so much more precious than a Liberians/ Rwandans/ etc.?

These war casualties make Americas 3000 look pretty insignificant. Not saying they are..just that the US has a low tolerance for bloodshed compared to other countries. Its ridiculous for America to keep going into wars gung ho with all their untouchable technology only to cry and go home as soon as someone gets hurt. Pampered comfortable western lifestyle, hello, most countries are prepared to lose far more. Either do it or don't.


http://www.arcuk.org/pages/apology-9m-deaths.htm

Its a dangerous precedent. Because Americas enemies know that all they have to do is persist and keep the killing going, and Americans will lose the stomach and give up.

[W.T.Carl]

Let's see-- 3000 in a matter of hours on 9/11 ( mostly ALL CIVILIANS).
3000 in four years ( ALL MILITARY). GEE, 3000 IN FOUR YEARS IS A LOT.
This does not imply that I hold Saddam responsible for 9/11. However, the US troops in Iraq are fighting Islamofascists not unlike Atta and his buddies. Oh, sorry, we ALL KNOW that it was the Jews and the Freemasons and the CIA and the Telephone Company and UFOs that were behind 9/11.

[cbclark4]

[twg]

[Adventurer]

It is hard to put a certain value over life. Look, it is really hard to avoid the deaths of so many people via car accidents (unless you talk about alcohol related ones). As far as murders, far more murders happen in the country in one year. So many of those could also be avoided. There are far less murders, percentage wise, in Japan, Canada, Sweden, but I don't know about England. In the same vein, I think going to war can be avoided in many cases. This may sound controversial, but I think if the media asked many questions before the war or reported many stories that were canned before 9/11 the soldiers wouldn't be there. The troops are there because of the Bush Administration, the media executives, and to some extent the Clinton Administration. I don't blame the populace for supporting it initially. They went based on the information provided by the media and government.

I agree with those who say that people lose thousands of soldiers in many wars. Rwanda is a bad example, however. World War II is a good one.
However, in World War II the Allies (Americans, British, Russians, Canadians, ANZACs) were fighting against fascism. The soldiers are not sure what exactly the mission was or is in Iraq. If you don't know why are you fighting for it is like studying a major and not knowing why. My objection is not the amount of soldiers who died, but the lack of a plan since the beginning til today.