OT Wasted lives

Two prominent politicians independently referred to "wasted lives" in the context of war in Iraq. And then they were forced to apologize and said something such as "sacrifices are never wasted".

My question is why is that "sacrifices are never wasted". Aren't there examples of misuse of military, where military operations result in no benefit? Aren't the lives of soldiers who happen to die, in those operations, wasted? They are still "sacrifices" from the standpoint of soldiers, but they are wasted nonetheless.

I find it disconcerting that discussion about Iraq centers around meaningless symbols such as "support of troops" or "wasted sacrifices" rather than the substance. The substance would include what we want from Iraq, whether we are able to achieve what we want, etc, how much it costs, etc. Instead, the discussion comes back to meaningless symbols, again and again.

I think that the Democrats are in cahoots with the Bush administration, on this war. The Bush administration simply wants to drag the war beyond the president's term so that they could say that "they did not lose the war". The Democrats hope that the war drags on until the next election, and offer meaningless anti-war gestures with no substance behind them. They pretend to want to stop the war, but do not do anything that would actually stop it. The reason for it is that they hope that the war will give them a landslide victory from voters unhappy with the war, next election.

So, there is a good benefit for both Bush administration, as well as Democrats, in continuing the war.

The result of this comedy? Wasted lives.

I think it is because both "sides" now realize this thing is a quagmire, and the hope of any positive outcome is rapidly approaching zero. We have inflamed the whole region, and may have already started WW III in motion. When Iran has the bomb, who knows what will happen? Anybody read Nostradamus? I used to think it was all a CROCK - but not anymore! Really scary!

Jon

I find it disconcerting when people discuss the war ONLY in terms of political motives of one or both parties, although political motives should not be ignored.

A non political approach to Iraq.

point 1) Islam (or at least the terroristic portion of Islam) has declared war on the United States, Western civilization, and all other religions. Examples are 9/11, the 1st world trade center bombing, Lockerbie Scotland, USS Cole, Bombings in Spain, London, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc.

point 2) We can't walk away from this fight because they will follow us. As I see it we have 3 choices, convert, fight or die. By retreating into some form of isolationism (remember WW II ) we can delay these choices, perhaps beyond our lifetimes, but only a coward would leave these choices to our children's children.

point 3) We should fight the terroristic portion of Islam when ever and where ever we find them and we are currently finding them in large quantity in Iraq, so why not reinforce. It will require a long campain to defeat the millions of terrorists, however I wonder if Americans have the resolve or patience for it, Carthage didn't have the resolve or patience when Hanibal was poised to destroy Rome and requested more troops and supplies, the end result was the destruction of Carthage by Rome roughly 50 years later.

Carl

... you are such an arsehole and keep on posting OT. Are you drunk again?

Nick

Yeah, but Nostradamus predicted the end of islam about 8 years from now!

cheers T.Alan

====================== This can be classified as the "sunk cost fallacy" in action.

Grandma used to call this "sending good money after bad," and "crying over spilled milk."

To the extent a "solution" exists, it is with the American voters and not the US military, excluding a "7 days in may" scenario, with the cure being worse than the disease.

This in no way should be viewed as a criticism of our armed forces except for those at the top. As always the American citizen soldiers have done everything that has been asked and more without complaint. They had no input into what they were ordered to do. When you are in a hole, digging faster, better or smarter is not a solution.

see

Oh, my! It is closer than I thought. Well, when some Arab state nukes either Geneva or New York (depends on whose interpretation you follow) then Islam may indeed come to an end.

Jon

I stil think Nostradamus is a crock, and that Iran would not use nuclear weapons unless attacked, but yes, otherwise it is a bad situation.

I do not think that we should trust people who got us into it, with giving us advice about what to do about "the way forward". When Dick Cheney enumerates the horrors of what happens when we lose this war, I always wonder when he will finally explain what he was thinking when he started it.

Recently good evidence came up that he knew that "Iraq war would turn into quagmire", prior to starting it. He knew that it would be a quagmire and yet started it anyway.

``For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over whos going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.'' -- that's what he said himself.

Later in 2003 he tried to convince us that we would be greeted as liberators.

That some people still give Cheney credibility, is a sad fact about human race.

I hope you are right, but it is still scary.

These people are so blinded by their own ideology, they think they are infallible. That is truly dangerous.

Jon

Yes.

I am not sure this is true. They ARE in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is where at least some of the above-mentioned attacks were directed from. Why do we only have

We defeated BOTH the Germans and the Japanese in roughly 4 years, SIMULTANEOUSLY, while also building the atomic bomb! Incredible! Yet, we can't find ONE GUY who directed several attacks against our country? Impossible, just plain impossible! We haven't found Osama or mullah Omar because it was in George Bush's political interest that he NOT be found! That is the ONLY conclusion I can come to. I don't think Osama is a major threat to the US right now (could be wrong, too) but he certainly IS a symbol of the radical Islamic movement, and his capture and trial would be a tremendous demoralizing blow to that movement. His continued freedom and occasional press releases are a great morale-booster to that movement.

I'm usually not such a cynic, but there is something really CRAZY going on behind the scenes.

Jon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attack Iraq

No WMD

No 9/11 link.

Al Qaida enters Iraq.

Iraq in crisis.

War Increases terrorist recruitment.

Halliburton can't account for $18 billion

Bin Laden remains free.

No end in sight.

HEY, STAY THE COURSE. YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS. LOL!

Dixon

I am still waiting for somebody to explain what "winning" this fiasco will look like.

I know the Sunni are out of power, we hate Saddamists and Baathists. The Shi'a are out 'cuz they are tied to Iran. The Kurds have all the power that Turkey will permit, if we give them more autonomy, we will have Nato vs Nato war in the North. We are using artillery on neighborhoods, I presume this is to ensure a never ending supply of pissed off Iraqis who want to kill us. Ditto the AC-130. There is still money to be made by Haliburton et al.

Anybody who ever saw the movie "Red Dawn" should recognise the scenario, the only trouble is that we have cast ourselves as the Russians. I seem to recall the film did not end well for the invaders.

Red Dawn is my favorite movie, bar none.

You are 100% on target and illustrate the absurdity of hope of "winning" in Iraq.

However, keep in mind that Bush got what he wanted, namely, getting reelected. What is a bad deal for us, is a good deal for him.

This is false. Radical Islamists have the following goals

I have not seen, anywhere, their leaders calling for such things as destruction of non-Muslim religions outside of Muslim areas.

We really do not have much of a choice, as continuing this unwinnable fight (in Iraq) is beyond our capability as a society or economy.

We have another choice, which is apologize, pay reparations, and continue our presence where we are still welcomed, and trying to influence events by means of money and politics. (which worked just fine to contain Saddam).

You will find a great quantity of them in any country that we'd invade.

No.

Another nonsensical analogy.

The sunk cost fallacy is a little less of a fallacy than simple minded economists make it to be. That's so because the sunk cost approach prevents us from changing out mind too often. (thinking that we "wasted all that money anyway, so let's do something else now").

Fortunately, this has little to do with war in Iraq, since we do not have a bona fide "sunk cost", we have "stolen goods" (since the war was started on false pretenses).

As long as people continue to swallow this nonsense that you are pointing out, we, as a society, deserve the consequences.

Very dangerous indeed.

Damn, Iran hits Israel, Israel gives Muslim world a nuclear 'Final Solution'.

Wes

Google Grand Caliphate.

Thats all you need to do to find out your a bit ah...less than well informed on the subject.

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham