Before anyone bites my head off for being anti-patriotic and cruel and unfeeling towards those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, please know that I'm actually the opposite of all those things. I am patriotic, I even carry little critters out of traffic's way and I know how people who have lose their sons or fathers or brothers or uncles or cousins and other relatices - I lost an uncle in Vietnam.

But, and it's a big but, if we were ready to back the War in Iraq, why are we so upset when we see American boys coming home in coffins? The death toll is now close to or just over 2,000 US tropps killed. Well, I'm sorry, but how many innocent Iraquis have been "collateral damage" of this war?? Every day we hear of another suicide bombers that killed 20 Iraqui police recruits and 120 bystanders, but no Ameicans. No one is considering how high that number is getting for the civilian casualties or Iraqui soldiers deaths and saying the war has to stop because too many people are dying. They say too man Americans are dying ... 2,000 versus what? 20,000 or more Iraqui citizens??? And we wonder why we don't have popular support amongst the people?????

I think we also have to think about how many people would be dying if we hadn't gone in - remember that we've found 300,000 to 500,000 people in mass graves so far. That means Saddam was killing at a minimum around 15,000 to 25,000 people a year over his 20 year reign - pretty high numbers. Those don't even include anyone he killed individually and buried in a regular cemetary. Then there's the people who were dying and getting sick from the economic sanctions that have been lifted. I don't think it's as clear cut as opponents of the war want it to be - there would have been a lot of deaths no matter what we did. 2,000 U.S. soldiers is a lot, but as you say, the Iraqis are people too and just as important - and it's not a lot by historical standards of war. We lost 50,000 in Vietnam, and it's a much lower death rate than any recent conflict given the number of troops involved. If we come out of this with a democratic Iraqi government, I think it will have been worth it in the end, if only because of how bad Saddam really was.

I guess it might be worth it IF we come out of this with a democratic government, but I don't know of any case where that has happened in the past when we've gone into an armed conflict. Yes, we may have had an "election" and perhaps it was semi-democratic, but we've had to prop up those governments ever since because the root cause of the hatred and violence in the countries involved isn't dealt with.

Each country is different, but in Iraq there are at least 5 large ethnic groups that have been fighting for centuries against each other and killing each other - one century one is in control; the next century another is in control; etc.

What do you do when faced with that kind of situation? It's like the Bosnian situation ... guess what? It's still a hotbed of violence and killing ... it's just that we don't care about that any more now we have a new war to think about. Or Afghanistan -- we might have to do something there again real soon as the government is losing control of the situation.

We've got to help these countries deal with the basic issues here, not just take out the current no-good-nik and put another in his/her place.

I can think of multiple cases where it's worked. Japan and Germany both are at the forefront - both countries had hostile and warlike populations, Japan had never even had a democracy before. It took about a decade for democracy to be entrenched, but imagine what could have happened if we'd just cut and run after World War II. Instead we invested in those countries and left them a better place - rich, wealthy populations that aren't a threat to their neighbors. South Korea is another good example - a government established in the aftermath of a U.S.-led intervention, that was supported for a long time with U.S. troops and still has some today. But again, it's democratic and has a wealthy population. There are also tons of countries that have shifted to democracies successfully after years of oppression or warfare - Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy - it takes work, but in all of these countries it's been worth it at the end because the result is a permanently friendly and peaceful country.

GoodGirl - You Said:

Personally; I disagree with that idea as it is written.

It isn't about "WE" - it is about them.

As you have implied - they have been fighting one another for centuries.

Finally; there is one thing that is VERY DIFFERENT over there - a constitution of their own design (not a puppet version of the USA's).

It is a constitution that all major factions have agreed on!

THAT is something they have NEVER had before.

I have a LOT of faith in this becoming a stepping stone to making Iraq a major player in the roll of Mideastern growth and development.

__________________

"One Person Will Get $25.00 Visa Gift Card - CLICK HERE To Get Your Chance!"

Over 2000 killed in Iraq so far. Initial estimates for the entire war were higher so I think we have done OK. Many of the people complaining about the dead troops are in my opinion intellectually dishonest. They just don't agree with the war for any reason. Constantly harping on the casualties is just their way of trying to persuade people to their view, but if it is just the casualties why not are they demonstrating in the streets over auto deaths which are 40 to 50 thousand every year. A large percentage of these deaths are due to drinking and for what purpose do these people die? Yet each trajedy is no less heartbreaking to their relatives. At least the brave troops that have fallen gave their all for a worthy cause. For the most part they believed they were doing the right thing for their country. They volunteered. No one is asking the anti-war slobs to fight for their country. They live in a free country that asks nothing form them except to obey the law. The least they cound do is stop trying to undermine a noble effort. If you can't help or won't help at least don't hurt. Is that asking too much?

yeah thats why people are so upset about u.s. casualties. because the life they had was taken away for NO reason but a lie. yeah people die everyday in ACCIDENTS not HATRED acts. it sucks that people die killing each other and never feel guilt. Its sad that they never realized that the person they just killed is another human. but some "americans" are so patriotic and so brainwashed that they dont want to see the truth. "War on terrosim....,war on terrorism...weapons of mass distruction, be afraid, be very afraid" yet there is no proof. no reason. Propaganda keeps us informed on dead u.s soldiers to make us feel more hate. Why dont they ever show all the innocent teachers, mothers,children and soldiers killed in iraq?

"At least the brave troops that have fallen gave their all for a worthy cause."

>>>Worthy cause????

[quote=If we come out of this with a democratic Iraqi government, I think it will have been worth it in the end, if only because of how bad Saddam really was.[/QUOTE]

>>>Damn! And here I was thinking we already had a democratic Iraqi government - what with all the elections 'n all.

Anyone who thinks we can just cut and run will have to look at what happened when we did not go all of the way to Baghdad in "Desert Storm". Saddam continued to execute all and any who helped the US in any way. The fledgling government of Iraq must be helped until it is able to run a relatively peaceful country. If necessary, we should maintain a force( both ground and air) in neighboring Kuwait, if the government called for help. It is not impossible that Iran might foment revolution by sending in fanatics and arms after we pull out. That is why our presence must be large and able to be deployed if necessary.