• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What is the number you pro war folks are comfortable with?

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
So far about 300 have been KIA and another ~1200 or so purple hearts are to be awarded for the maimed... Just wondering what number is acceptable before reservations kick in in your mind? 1000, 10,000? Have you done any kind of cost/benefit analysis? or has the governement?
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
1,000,000 democrats.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

KK
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: KK
1,000,000 democrats.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

KK
Stupid? the coutry thought around 5000 was enough in vietnam before the massive war protests started... then finally around 55,000 when everyone agreed they came home. There is always a number before critical mass and even hard core neo-cons have to call it quits. Just wondering if you all given thought to it? Or has bush or the administration? Simple question.

BTW- there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers;)
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: KK
1,000,000 democrats.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

KK
Stupid? the coutry thought around 5000 was enough in vietnam before the massive war protests started... then finally around 55,000 when everyone agreed they came home. There is always a number before critical mass and even hard core neo-cons have to call it quits. Just wondering if you all given thought to it? Or has bush or the administration? Simple question.

BTW- there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers;)
Well, my understanding of vietnam was or is that the military could have done a much better job if it wasn't for the beauracracy(sp?) in washington. I don't think we'll have that problem again, atleast I hope not. No one wants us over there any longer than it takes to get some type of government that the iraqis choose up and running.

KK
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Kennedy thought any price paid would be worth the reward of freedom. His inaugural address.
The questions needing answered are; can freedom be achieved? If it can be is the price to us worth the reward of freedom for them? These are the positions folks run for president on.. It boils down to them and how many will it take before it is me.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Put the chickenhawks in the DOD and the administration on the frontline, and my level of comfort will go up dramatically.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: povertystruck
Number of iraqis or americans?
Another good question. How many Iraqis killed would be a good number to free those from the "tyranny" of Saddam or Islam? So far estimates are around 6000... Not near the 1 million vietmanese we killed but still signifigant number.

Going in I would have said this is acceptable number based on what Bush told us...now it seems totally a waste..
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,255
3,353
126
I'm not sure there is a number, it's probably more of a time. If Deaths/Injuries continue unabated or the situation goes on without significant improvement, then after a period of time the people will just come to the point of saying, "Enough!"
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: povertystruck
Number of iraqis or americans?
I agree with Zebo. Great question. Some people seem to forget that the Iraqis are human beings too.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
Does Mommy know you're playing with her computer again? What a dipstick.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
Does Mommy know you're playing with her computer again? What a dipstick.

Beat it, troll.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
Does Mommy know you're playing with her computer again? What a dipstick.

Beat it, troll.
That's funny. That's exactly what I thought when I read your post. Your reply was completely off-topic.

(By the way, you seem to be a few quarts short.)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
let me get this straight...you want to determine the number of american casualties it takes to "break the will" of the country to wage war in iraq..

let's say your right with the 5000 number..

so any despot can attack/blackmail/threaten/destabilize the U.S., and all they need to do is kill 5000
american troops to get the U.S. to back off..

do you understand that other countries and their goverments look at the U.S. and interpret our actions based on
previous events? the fact that negative press and protests at home in the 70's "resulted" in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from vietnam,
made the U.S. look weak and defeatable (by a small country no less) and probably has ENCOURAGED the present eforts in iraq to kill americans.

if we don't present a determined, united front to our enemies (and rest assurred we have enemies not of our own making) a strong argument can be made
that we are encouraging them to continue to fight us.

military force is the last form of diplomacy when all else has failed...it's best role is as a deterrent..but it has to be a credible deterrent to work.

to undermine the credibilty of our military actions is self-defeating..like it or not, that's why some people call the actions of the democrats "treasonous"
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
You do realize that this is a war right? People die in war. Sure it's sad when they do, but it is war. Also 300 deaths in taking over an entire country is next to nothing. Makes me wonder what you people would have thought during WWII when people were dying by the thousands.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
Does Mommy know you're playing with her computer again? What a dipstick.

Beat it, troll.
That's funny. That's exactly what I thought when I read your post.
Ditto. Of course you thought that, because my views do not coincide with your own. That's the problem with kids like you...pull your pants up and get it through your head that there are two sides to every argument.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,519
136
I'd like a number from the anti-war folks too: Saddam had 12 years to hide his goods, and an assload of cash to facilitate the effort. How long should it take to find the WMD? Keep in mind the size of Iraq, and the fact we've only been in there, what? 190 some days? (all the while being shot at no less).

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this straight...you want to determine the number of american casualties it takes to "break the will" of the country to wage war in iraq..

let's say your right with the 5000 number..

so any despot can attack/blackmail/threaten/destabilize the U.S., and all they need to do is kill 5000
american troops to get the U.S. to back off..

do you understand that other countries and their goverments look at the U.S. and interpret our actions based on
previous events? the fact that negative press and protests at home in the 70's "resulted" in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from vietnam,
made the U.S. look weak and defeatable (by a small country no less) and probably has ENCOURAGED the present eforts in iraq to kill americans.

if we don't present a determined, united front to our enemies (and rest assurred we have enemies not of our own making) a strong argument can be made
that we are encouraging them to continue to fight us.

military force is the last form of diplomacy when all else has failed...it's best role is as a deterrent..but it has to be a credible deterrent to work.

to undermine the credibilty of our military actions is self-defeating..like it or not, that's why some people call the actions of the democrats "treasonous"
Interestin point HS, but you realise there is is always a number. Always a time when the amount of casualties exceeds or will to "win" a particular conflict. One can't compare WWII to these new conficts which we essentailly start. US would have been speaking German if we did'nt act in WWII. I am speaking about these "diplomacy wars" which is what every war has been since WWII. These nations posed no threat but we felt the need to intervien. The threat USSR.. we left alone because the number of loses would have been to great to invade. Everyone recongnized this, except a few kooks. So I ask again what number are you satisfied in loosing to secure Iraq? What is your "this was a bad idea value" I know you got one. And why arn't these things talked about by admin and before hand.
 

a2k

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
259
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You do realize that this is a war right? People die in war. Sure it's sad when they do, but it is war. Also 300 deaths in taking over an entire country is next to nothing. Makes me wonder what you people would have thought during WWII when people were dying by the thousands.
It's a war alright. One based on lies ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"). I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my life was on the front line.

Regardless, I don't think people are adding up the death toll yet. It's a trickle, so there are never any big numbers. I think it won't start getting people's attention until single-day deaths rise into the hundreds. Then, it will begin to feel like we're slipping.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this straight...you want to determine the number of american casualties it takes to "break the will" of the country to wage war in iraq..

let's say your right with the 5000 number..

so any despot can attack/blackmail/threaten/destabilize the U.S., and all they need to do is kill 5000
american troops to get the U.S. to back off..
well sure we can't have that, and Saddam is by all means a despot, but then again Iraq was not doing anything to "attack/blackmail/threaten/destabilize the U.S."; so i don't rightly see how your argument applies to this case.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Given that 3600% more people have died in France due to heat (and the inaction of the French government while on vacation), I believe we have a long way to go before the 'Vietnam Quagmire' arguments become validated.
Does Mommy know you're playing with her computer again? What a dipstick.

Beat it, troll.
After you

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY