Those of you that believe in this war...

[MikeWaters]

I'm curious...do you wish you were there fighting?

Would you send your children? Would you encourage your children to go?

The usual response would be, "I would not encourage it, but if he/she wanted to do go, I would support them."

Well, that's just neutrality. That's not taking a stand.

I know people will have different answers. Some would feel this is a worthy cause to send their children to their death.

Me, personally, I would discourage my son from going.

I think that something is wrong in America when for people with means, this is merely a hypothetical that is far removed from reality. The idea of your child dying as a member of the military.

It's a lot easier to send others to their deaths, rather than your own blood.

[creekster]

This is a very good and very difficult question. I know I would be very unhappy if my son was sent to that theatre of operations.

I gather from your post that you would support a reinsitution of the draft to make the burden of this and any war more lilely to affect all socioeconomic classes?

[MikeWaters]

I think if the burden is spread between all people, we will make better decisions about war.

I recognize there are advantages to a volunteer military. Very significant advantages.

But we must also recognize the disadvantages. Perhaps there could be some sort of hybrid system.

This brings to mind another question. Imagine if there were mandantory govt/military service after high school in this country. I wonder what stand the church would take, as it would definitely impact the missionary program (probably for the worse).

[non sequitur]

Does anybody still believe in this war? I can understand people being sucked into the hype of the war in the beginning, but does anybody honestly think we have accomplished anything that even remotely justifiies the expense and loss of life we have experienced?

[Archaea]

my first evaluation was that it was unnecessary, but I hope I ultimately am found to be in error.

Those who were against the war will always find evidence that the war was a waste of time, which it ultimately be proven to be. However, having the constant negative rhetoric shoved down my throat by media and naysayers makes me wonder if I'm seeing the whole picture. I doubt I'm receiving adequate information on all aspects. The reason I am somewhat suspect of my conclusions are anecdotal discussions with military personnel who've spent time there. Almost without exception, they have not felt their time was a waste there.

The wisdom of this conflict needs to stand the test of time, even though you and everybody else have long made up your minds. I guess I'm the proverbial fence sitter with one foot on the ground. It may be that the constant negative press is the result of accurate reporting, but given my few forays with the press I tend to doubt it.

[OhioBlue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Does anybody still believe in this war? I can understand people being sucked into the hype of the war in the beginning, but does anybody honestly think we have accomplished anything that even remotely justifiies the expense and loss of life we have experienced?

I do.

And I'm far from a right-wing conservative Bush fan. I don't really know what expenses justify what results in this conflict-ridden world--and expenses that involve human lives are the most costly of all. Your question is not an easy one, although the use of the qualifier "remotely" makes it a little easier for me to answer the way I did.

I guess for me it comes down to the good that was done by removing Saddam. I wish it could have been done a different way, but I also believe that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whose voices will never make it onto the pages of our newspapers or the screens of our news broadcasts may also answer your question similarly.

Hammer away.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by OhioBlue

I do.

And I'm far from a right-wing conservative Bush fan. I don't really know what expenses justify what results in this conflict-ridden world--and expenses that involve human lives are the most costly of all. Your question is not an easy one, although the use of the qualifier "remotely" makes it a little easier for me to answer the way I did.

I guess for me it comes down to the good that was done by removing Saddam. I wish it could have been done a different way, but I also believe that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whose voices will never make it onto the pages of our newspapers or the screens of our news broadcasts may also answer your question similarly.

Hammer away.

I pretty much agree though it is a close call. I think that there are benefits, hope for much greater benefits ultimately, and think we have suffered huge detriments as well.

With the utmost respect to those who oppose the war, I think that if you really get to a place where you just can't understand why any rational person would support it you have probably done so as a result of imagining a world where there was and is some bright shining peril free choice to be made which would unburden us, protect us, and make everyone like us again. That world does not exist.

It is legitimate to oppose the war, there are good reasons to. I just tire a little of the "how can you possibly?" sort of thinking because it fails to acknowledge that there are good reasons to be in favor of the war both at its inception and now. Now in the final analysis it may well be the the reasons against are more pursuasive than the reasons for it. I have a tough time, however, taking seriously those who dogmatically insist that there is no reason at all for it. Once you believe that then you are free to ascribe evil motives and believe in conspiracies, etc, and that stuff doesn't advance the conversation.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

It is legitimate to oppose the war, there are good reasons to. I just tire a little of the "how can you possibly?" sort of thinking because it fails to acknowledge that there are good reasons to be in favor of the war

the original premise of this thread was that people who believe the fighting in the streets of Iraq would be taking place in America if we weren't in Iraq is ridiculous.

Now maybe some people actually believe this. They think that there would be a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis in the streets of America, that there would be thousands of IED's exploding all over American freeways.

I can't help these people. They are too far down the rabbit hole.

[JohnnyLingo]

Who have you helped, Mike?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the original premise of this thread was that people who believe the fighting in the streets of Iraq would be taking place in America if we weren't in Iraq is ridiculous.

Now maybe some people actually believe this. They think that there would be a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis in the streets of America, that there would be thousands of IED's exploding all over American freeways.

I can't help these people. They are too far down the rabbit hole.

I think that was the premise of a different thread. However, I hear what you are saying. I don't think Sunnis and Shiites would be fighting in American streets either. If you can point to somebody saying that, as opposed to that being a strawman characterization of what was said, I will readily admit that it is absurd.

I think that the argument generally is that we are taking on militant islam in the middle east (in its many permutations) and as a result they are attacking us there because it is easier to do than coming here. Now I don't think you can really argue that there would be anywhere near the level of violence here in teh US because most of the attackers there would never have the wherewithall to get themselves over here. To do that you need money and a complex network ala Al Queda.

The next step in the analysis is to say that since we have done a lot of harm to Al Queda's infrastructure and killed or forced underground many of its operatives, that it MAY be that this is the reason IN PART we have not been attacked again. Also, since we, in some sense, are an easy target in Iraq, many of those who would like to attack us here attack us there because it is much easier to do. If we were not there, would some of them find us in places like New York City, the USS Cole or the Kobar towers? Clearly yes they would.

This where I think there is disconnect and where people begin to talk past one another. In the pre-911 world, it was much easier to look at the MANY terrorist attacks in isolation and conclude that the cost/benefit simply did not favor the large casualties involved in a large scale operation to combat such a threat. You lose a lot of people when you do that. But once it was demostrated that killing could be done on a very large scale the cost benefit changed. You can let a threat form and wait for your figurative leg to be blown off before you act.

Then we get into yet a further disconnect because even if you believe the above, you may legitimately wonder what Iraq has to do with that since we didn't find WMD. At this point, to me, previous rationales and arguments almost don't matter. We (and everyone else BTW) were wrong about WMD, but now we are sitting on a country whose country we toppled. Forget how it happened, it doesn't matter anymore. Now the only question is, what do we do now?

What is the cost benefit of pulling out as opposed to staying and hoping that we can get a stable government in place. Well we know if we withdraw Iraq will be come Iran or Afghanistan or some hybrid. That is a recipe for disaster for us, we know that. If we stay, there is no guarantee of success and we will assuredly continue to poor blood down the drain. This is not a black and white issue. Just as we did pre-war, we sit here with shitty options, imperfect information and no crystal ball. Sitting around shouting "Bush lied!" and "Traitor!" back and forth doesn't solve it.

I guess I see the choice as between some hope of salvaging the situation, and no nope of salvaging it. It may well be that there is no hope down any road and I just don't see it yet. I personally think we have to continue to try for now. You may well ask how long before we know our efforts are in vain. I don't know, but I think we need to continue to give it a shot.

I hope (seriously) in the next presidential election everyone can just agree that Bush screwed up (doesn't matter whether he did) so that we can move off of recriminations and on to solutions. I would love to here some solutions.