Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RoadTrip, I have to ask the question: you said that we would have been "justified." Please tell us what the justification would be.>> First of all, it was not a civilian target. By all accounts Fallujah was pretty much a ghost town when the offensive took place except for insurgents. And the civilian population DID have fair warning, which is certainly more than the 100's of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had. I think we could have used the same justification in Fallujah that we used in Japan. That in the long term, the action saved more lives than it took. I think it might have made good sense to show the insurgents that we weren't messing around any longer and that the time to stop was NOW. Would you prefer to watch a couple of hundred Iraqi civilians get killed each week by insurgents for the next 10 years, or bring a halt to it NOW? Frankly, we worry WAY too much about what the rest of the world would think or say. They aren’t there helping us, so screw them as far as I’m concerned. Britain and Australia get some input, but no one else.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I think we could have used the same justification in Fallujah that we used in Japan. That in the long term, the action saved more lives than it took. I think it might have made good sense to show the insurgents that we weren't messing around any longer and that the time to stop was NOW. Would you prefer to watch a couple of hundred Iraqi civilians get killed each week by insurgents for the next 10 years, or bring a halt to it NOW? >>> Holy crap, I can hardly believe what I'm reading. Let's set WWII aside for the moment. Here in the 21st century, you think it's acceptable to use WMD anytime that it could save more lives than it takes? That's a very dangerous precedent to set. <<< Frankly, we worry WAY too much about what the rest of the world would think or say. They aren’t there helping us, so screw them as far as I’m concerned. >>> You act as if the only reason to not use WMD is worrying over what the rest of the world thinks. May I remind you that speaking only of nuclear weapons and ignoring chemical and biological weapons, we have several nations that have openly declared and tested operational weapons: US, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. It's generally accepted that Israel has them as well, although they don't admit to it publicly. And it's possible that North Korea has them. Since the end of WWII, it's been generally accepted that use of WMD is completely unacceptable. In fact, that was one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq, some 20+ years after Saddam used them. Completely ignoring what others might think, what effect do you think a US use of atomic weapons in Fallujah might have on other nations' ACTIONS? Consider this especially in a potential future conflict involving US forces in places like the Korean peninsula or the Straits of Taiwan. Completely ignoring the moral consequences of using WMD under any circumstances, do you think it wise to set the precedent that it's okay to use them in any situation where the number of lives saved outways those taken?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Completely ignoring what others might think, what effect do you think a US use of atomic weapons in Fallujah might have on other nations' ACTIONS?>> Not a thing. There is no great moral guideline that keeps other nations from using nukes. The only deterrent is that every nation on earth knows that even though they might be able to wipe out one of our cities, we could turn their entire country into cinders. Do you really think that Kim Jong Il would worry about the moral issues involved with using nukes?? What a chuckle!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please enlighten us as to how many US forces that Saddam or his army have killed (use any time period you like). Please share with us how many US civilians Saddam has killed over the yeras.> Not sure how many American deaths Saddam is responsible for, but your statement did not specify that you were only talking about American deaths that Saddam caused. Saddam was responsible for more Iraqi deaths than have been lost in Iraq since we began our action there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We're not causing the majority of civilian deaths even now. According to Noam Chomsky, a strong critic of our action in Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a direct result it. However, also according to Mr. Chomsky, prior to our action, 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of five were dying each month as a result of U.N. sanctions. That translates to 135,000 children saved since Saddam's regime fell. Thus, according to Mr. Chomsky, 35,000 more Iraqis are alive today because of our actions.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip When the United States goes to war it should be willing to use EVERY weapon in it's arsenal to bring the war to a rapid conclusion while minimizing the loss of life of civilians and U.S. military personnel. If we are not willing to do that, up to and including the use of nukes, we shouldn't go to war in the first place. I don’t mean to sound like Beaumandy light, but I think it is really ridiculous that we feel we need to fight wars with one hand tied behind our back. If we as a country are not willing to do WHATEVER it takes to win a war, we have no business going to war in the first place.
Originally Posted By gadzuux You almost sound like a terrorist. They too use extraordinary means in fighting their battles. I would agree that we take some care to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries of civlians, but not enough. It's not "really ridiculous" that we limit our methods and tactics to those that are covered under international conventions - if we flaunt them, nobody else will pay any attention to them either. As the world's lone superpower, we are essentially the only military that can intervene between two nations - but what kind of standing would we have if we're guilty of the same atrocities that we're trying to prevent? The iraq war is a 'war of choice'. Iraq did not attack us - we attacked them. We're not in a "do or die" situation, and we can leave whenever we choose. There may be circumstances where the US military's hand is forced and we must use non-conventional weapons for our own preservation - this isn't it. In fact, this is the ideal scenario for conducting ourselves with the highest possible level of integrity we can muster - we don't have much to lose here. We "lost" in south vietnam, but what did we really lose? Our reputation, our sense of might and honor and about 50k american soldiers. For what? Life in the US rolled along much as it would have if we never went in at all. We tried, we failed, we left. I see iraq going much the same way. Only in this case, we started it. We are not going to defeat "terrorism" in iraq. In fact, we're going to leave iraq worse for our involvement. It was bad before, but it was not a center of islamic extremeism and terrorism. Now it is, and it's unlikely that we're going to undo that. Nice goin' bush.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>However, also according to Mr. Chomsky, prior to our action, 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of five were dying each month as a result of U.N. sanctions. That translates to 135,000 children saved since Saddam's regime fell.<< If you use that reasoning, the best course of action to prevent needless deaths would have been to stop the UN sanctions and to have not invaded Iraq.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you use that reasoning, the best course of action to prevent needless deaths would have been to stop the UN sanctions and to have not invaded Iraq.> Sure, that would've worked. Until Saddam reacquired WMD's and launched the next war, or handed them over to terrorists to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <However, also according to Mr. Chomsky, prior to our action, 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of five were dying each month as a result of U.N. sanctions. That translates to 135,000 children saved since Saddam's regime fell. Thus, according to Mr. Chomsky, 35,000 more Iraqis are alive today because of our actions.> I believe Chomsky was referring to the period before "oil-for-food" when many Iraqi children were indeed dying due to the sanctions. That's why the program was instituted, and for all its flaws, it DID prevent most of those deaths. So the 4,500 figure is not accurate for the years leading up to the war. Thus, Chomsky claimed no such thing that you claimed he did.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I believe Chomsky was referring to the period before "oil-for-food" when many Iraqi children were indeed dying due to the sanctions.> I believe Chomsky was saying it right up to when we invaded.
