<p>Here’s the thing, Kluge: what evidence do you have that adherence to our nation’s ideals and principles, however described, would lead to the international pat-on-the-head that you and your liberal friends crave? How would we even identify the mega-pat on the head?</p>
<p>It’s not that simple, Btm. It’s not like a math question where you figure out the right answer and* boom!* everything is solved. Anything involving lots of people (and here we’re talking billions, right?) is going to have lots of variables, lots of forces pushing things this way and that. Everything goes into the mix. If a nation treats others with disdain and arrogance - it will be a factor down the road, just as with individuals. Will that make another nation ignore its own best interests “for a friend?” No. Will it tilt the balance in a close question like “Can we use your airbase for refueling?” It might. I’m just saying that the respect of other nations and peoples shouldn’t be squandered lightly.</p>
<p>
Nothing cold about it. It’s called reality. Assume for the sake of argument that that soldier who may die because of an extended war is your father or brother. Your father/brother dies because the American government was afraid to kill “innocent” citizens of Japan. If you could see the future and that was the future, would it be ok then? Sorry, but our goverment’s obligation is to protect our citizens and soldiers and not to sacrafice our soldiers merely to avoid injury to an enemy that wanted to destroy our country. I would not have wanted to see our government deciding whose father/brother had to die in war instead of breaking the will of the enemy in an effective manner. It was a certainty that the war would end if the bomb was dropped. It was not certain that the war would end if the bomb wasn’t dropped.</p>
<p>So razor, here’s a question. We could certainly save at least <em>one</em> American soldier’s life if we:</p>
<p>a) withdraw entirely from Iraq, and then immediately</p>
<p>b) carpet bomb Iraq from North to South, using nukes as needed, to kill every living thing (valueless, of course, since it is not American) in that country.</p>
<p>So why not do that?</p>
<p>Why not just systematically kill every person in the rest of the world that is not an American? It sure would save a lot of American soldiers’ lives.</p>
<p>Nothing cold about any of it, right?</p>
<p>Breaking News, Breaking News, Breaking News:</p>
<p>Obama Is Still A Socialist!</p>
<p>vicariousparent: Because that would not end the war. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were sure that two nuclear strikes could tip the scales of the Japanese over to capitulation. In the case of Iraq, carpet-bombing would not only be widely unpopular domestically, but the US would probably be economically strangled by the UN (or at least I hope we would) in retaliation for heinous war crimes, and, above all, the attack would serve as further motivation for Islamic extremists to attack the country. Carpet-bombing is in no way a good idea and there would be no positive results. </p>
<p>In World War II, however, the lamentable deaths of civilians was seen as necessary to end the fighting after the world had been dragged through years of vicious, disgusting fighting. Dropping the bombs did kill hundreds of thousands of people, but it was the end of a World War, and the world was so sick of mindless violence (especially since an invasion of Japan would so easily bring to mind the machine-gun-lined trenches of WWI) that even the deaths of so many civilians could be somewhat justified by bringing peace at last. The only “negative” repercussion for the US would be the ire of the Japanese, whose military was pinioned at the end of the war so another dropping of the bomb would not be necessary.</p>
<p>
You are comparing a war of apples and a war of oranges. The Iraq war is not WWII. Iraq was a relative “weak” enemy when compared to Japan and Germany. (Although to the Americans actually fighting in Iraq, the enemy is just as bad as any other enemy faced by American soliders). Different wars means different tactics. </p>
<p>One of the biggest problems we face today is the weak-kneed liberals who think there is only a right way to win a war and that killing too many of the enemy is a problem. History tells us that you cannot win a war until you have broken your enemy’s will. The first George Bush succumed to this political correctness by stopping the war too early. When Saddam’s army was on retreat, George Bush (41) stopped bombing them because it might look too bad to have killed so many of the enemy. The result was that Saddam’s will was not broken, his army was not broken and he was able to regroup and fight us again. If we had truly destroyed Saddam’s army the first time, we may never had have to fight them a second time.</p>
<p>Razorsharp - do you really think that’s why BushI stopped the advance? Not because he didn’t want to go against the wishes of the Saudis and the other members of the coalition? Do you remember the “Highway of Death?” I don’t think killing enemy soldiers was an issue then or now.</p>
<p>“Boom” has a wonderful ring to it, for those of us whose world experience goes beyond a pampered, privileged cyber-world, Kluge.</p>
<p>Focus, btm, focus. I’m pretty sure my cyber-world is the same as yours.</p>
<p>We have on the table two theories as to Bush I’s lack of, ahem, backbone. Here’s a third: I think he and we didn’t have the stomach to handle casualties.</p>
<p>Not really, Kluge. The men that I know understand boom. You fall down, go boom. Your internet comments are fun, though.</p>
<p>
That is precisely what I am referring to. The Saudis and other coalition members were concerned about appearances of being too hard on the enemy, but they would have deferred to Bush I if he had insisted. He didn’t. He feared public opininin America. He caved in to “peer pressure” and failed to break the will of the enemy. The consequences of his weakness may very well have contributed to forces resulting in the second Gulf war.</p>
<p>Dick Cheney remembers it differently: <a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I</a></p>
<p>He doesn’t mention “weak-kneed liberals” or “political correctness.”</p>
<p>Kluge,
there is a great song by the Kinks called “It is Time for You to Stop of all your Sobbing.”</p>
<p>You need to listen to it. So many immigrants have already heard the message that you native-born Americans seem incapable of realizing. Very sad.</p>
<p>“many immigrants have already heard the message that you native-born Americans seem incapable of realizing.”</p>
<p>What message is that?</p>
<p>
btm, I don’t think we ever even, you know - dated? So I’d be just as happy if you don’t “want me”, OK? In fact, I bet I could scare up some tears just to keep that from happening, if need be…</p>
<p>I’d be willing to translate the “me” in the lyrics to America. And not the Ugly Betty star.</p>
<p>I was responding to razorsharp’s blunt comment that the life of even <em>one</em> US soldier is more precious than any number of enemy civillians. It follows that if we could destroy every living non-American we could pretty much ensure that all our soldiers would die of natural causes.</p>
<p>In fact, the Pentagon actually does have a formula, not articulated, whereby potential American casualties are weighed against enemy casualties, esp civillian. They will never admit to it but the formula works out to about 1 US soldier for about 1000-2000 enemy casualties. No way would they kill 100,000 enemy to save 1 US soldier.</p>
<p>i wanna see that formula. it sounds like the calculations that insurance companies do to put a price on human lives.</p>