<p>there are no reasons to justify so many deaths.</p>
<p>I personally believe miliatary service, especially volunteering, is one of the most honorable things a person can do. People with the attitude of "its just about killing people" are just sticking to naive ideas of how the world works. People were dying at the hands of Saddam's regime and we're doing something about it. Now, I'm not saying that I support all the reasons that I believe we went to war in Iraq, but we are there and should support our troops to the greatest extent we can.
They are risking their lives, not just for whatever you believe we are "fighting for", but for foreigners. Strangers, not only in birthplace and language but in culture, religion, and experience with freedom. Its new to them. Think of how wierd of a country we were following the American Revolution. And as for the US after the Civil War? People just need to give the Iraqi government and its citizens some time to get settled.</p>
<p>Well done, elcommando! Coming from a family of military men (my uncle graduated from West Point, we're all members of USAA, etc.) I congratulate your bravery. I know I could never do something. I personally am not physically cut out for military service (I'm practically legally blind, thus ruining my dream of being a fighter pilot;)), but I can recognize courage and patriotism in others. It is not a waste of an ivy league education to want to fight for your country.</p>
<p>Does anybody know much about the rotc program at dartmouth? I've recently decided that I would like to do ROTC (too late to apply for the full scholarship, but...) and have poked around on the dartmouth site a bit, but can't find much that tells about their presence now.
I also have been unsuccessfully looking for any info on a NROTC program, in particular...</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Erotc/%5B/url%5D">http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rotc/</a></p>
<p>No Navy, only Army.</p>
<p>this thread has degenerated into a war of unfounded opinions.</p>
<p>primitivefuture, if Bush were assasinated things would be chaos... and Cheney would become president. Is that solving anything?</p>
<p>slipper, every president who has EVER gone to war had something to gain. Our ECONOMY benefits tremendously from war in almost every instance as well. It is unfair to juxtapose the deaths of VOLUNTARY soldiers with military contractors... please, if a war is going on, the contracted companies are GOING TO MAKE MONEY because they are SUPPLYING WHAT THE TROOPS NEED. Someone has to do the job, and it sure as hell isn't some mediocre "everyman" company!</p>
<p>It always upsets me when people are so adamantly against war. Do you think if we stood around baring our teeth Iraq would be on its way to democracy? We ended slavery, liberated Europe and pacified Japan, we essentially saved Southeast Asia in WWII, helped curb genocide in Africa and other parts of the world, interceded in civil unrest in South America... we started our own country. Bloodshed has always been the sacrifice necessary for just cause and reward since the first records of human history. People now demonize Bush because he did something that was right but for the wrong reasons.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not saying Bush is 100% right... he's not. But do you think the majority of the American public really wants to know the truth about Iraq/the Middle East/the budget/etc... or furthermore, can even COMPREHEND any of the aforementioned? No. Bush needed to act, and he did. And the people of Iraq have had free elections, they are much safer than under Saddam, women are regaining rights. So stop jumping on Bush like he's a complete idiot/tyrant/warhawk. Better than a lame duck.</p>
<p>And primitivefuture... How many of our troops have died? A bit over a thousand? Do you have any idea how many tens of thousands have suffered and died under Saddam? How many limbs were cut off, how many children mutilated? SADDAM USED MUSTARD GAS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE and performed "experiments" on the Kurds, whom he probably would have attemped full-scale genocide on if he was not removed. And in international court, he fully denies all criminal allegations. </p>
<p>Troops go into battle knowing full well they may die. For God's sake, if it wasn't for intervention, Saddam would still be killing innocent civilians.</p>
<p>downindreams, et al,</p>
<p>do you have any idea how many people died when we supported Sadam when he launched his invasion of Iran (with our blessing)? 1,000,000+ Iranians and 100's of thousands of Iraqi's: bringing freedom to the middle-east indeed!
Using poison gas
Using nerve gas
Using mustard gas
Much of which he purchased from us (we didnt get overly concerned about his WMD's until he invaded a dictatorship we liked, Kuwait).</p>
<p>To even think this isn't about oil is, as you say, naive. Of course it is about oil--now you have to decide if it is worth the oil.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it isn't.
However, this is the real question, not whether we have given Iraqi's the right to vote.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Bush did this to make himself or his friends (most all in the oil industry) rich. I'm saying he made a strategic decision to insure our oil supplies in a world of dwindling oil and expanding industry + population (China, India, SE Asia, Brazil etc.)--and coincidentally, his associates will get rich.
None of those 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis who were killed when Sadam was our weird uncle in Iraqi (1980s) got the chance to vote in the last election. </p>
<p>Deal with it: (as they said in the 90s) its the oil stupid!</p>
<p>"But do you think the majority of the American public really wants to know the truth about Iraq/the Middle East/the budget/etc... or furthermore, can even COMPREHEND any of the aforementioned? No. Bush needed to act, and he did."</p>
<p>downindreams,</p>
<p>"truly you have a dizzying intellect" (wesley, Princess Bride) and a subtle and byzantine opinion of representative democracy.</p>
<p>I wonder how this version of democracy will work out in Iraq?</p>
<p>Fountain,</p>
<p>Funny how people think economies benefit from war. Have you noticed how much the price of oil has gone up? A very select population will benefit and they will control the most powerful wealth in the world for years to come. These are the facts regardless of motivation. The Bush family holds a strong interest in many of these companies (the carlyle group, halliburton, etc). I go to business school. Its all about helping your friends out, and these guys do it like no one else.</p>
<p>Saddam was our puppet. He was controllable. Countless sources have said Bush was determined to go back to Iraq and supposed (a non-existent) link with 9-11. Its funny how many times he is quoted saying he didnt assume this link, when there is so much footage of him connecting the two. Plain and simple, this president has done a lot more for himself and his friends than for the USA. Meanwhile conservative values like small government and fiscal responsibility are old news. I cannot believe republicans support this guy. Funny, I often hear republicans half heartedly defend him, as if they also wish they had someone else but they cant admit it.</p>
<p>Slipper,</p>
<p>I agree, that "benefit from war" thing, posted above, was bothering me too. Moreover, I hope it doesn't make me seem like a softey to say I'm "adamantly against war." Weakness to me is having a war, not avoiding one.</p>
<p>Why does everyone make such a big deal about Haliburton? Haliburton has been given huge government contracts for many, many years, I think the number is over 40. No Bush, nor a relative of Bush was in office at that time.
Kalidescope, the US that gave "our blessing" (sorry for the pun) was governed by a very different legislature and executive branch. But we actually really have to deal with Iran. Personally, I thought Iran and North Korea were a lot bigger issues than Iraq, but you know sometimes you deal with the smallest issue first. I just thought we would have gotten a lot more foreign aid in those battles (not just militarily, but also diplomatically and economically), but America, as a whole, was so in ANTI-MIDDLE EAST TERRORIST mode that Iraq seemed like a good choice. In retrospect think of how caught up in that frenzy you were, and don't adulterate those thoughts with your current views and current knowledge.
I will come out and say that even though I'm a Republican, Bush isn't my favorite guy for the job, but he's in office, and he's the de facto head of the Republican party. I really would rather have someone like Sen. Rick Santorum or Sen. Bill Frist or, my personal favorite, the governor of Colorado, Bill Owens. Hopefully, at the end of this term, we might come back to focus on small government and conservative economics.</p>
<p>Yes true just maybe mybe Bush isnt the right man but i sure as hell wouldnt want sen Kerry or in the future.....Hilary Clinton!!!!</p>
<p>Besides we had to attack Iraq i dont care if they didnt truly have WMD's w had to make an example of them to other countries in the middle east and North Korea.....now yes North Korea is way bigger than Iraq but still....Did you guys know that there are two countries that started to fully cooperate with the US now after we attacked Iraq? i dont remember which countries right now.</p>
<p>It's difficult to imagine that any country that is "caught up in a frenzy" should be waging an elective war. Under those circumstances any country may be likely to go to war under the wrong pretense. That is to say, said country may act rashly on limited and incomplete information and may be further inclined to convince themselves that the reasons for waging the war do not necessarily need to be the reasons given to the public, if we are talking about a democratically elected government that actually values the INFORMED consent of the governed.</p>
<p>As to the war we gave "our blessing" to when Saddam invaded Iran; I have no idea how Saddam justified the war to his own people; perhaps he told them that Iran had WMD's that it was about to use on Iraqi's; perhaps he told them that Iran was funding terrorist fundamentalist in an effort to bring down his secular, western-leaning government; perhaps we allowed US corporations to sell the recipes and ingredients for the WMD's Saddam usewd to kill over a million Iranians because we believed Saddam's claims; perhaps we were somewhat less worried about people being tortured to death, or the gasing of the Kurds, or the extermination of the Shia Marsh-Arabs in those days; but, perhaps many people in this world have a longer memory than we do and are a little less forgiving when we are "in an ANTI-MIDDLE-EAST TERRORIST mode" and pick one of the countries that was known to have no working ties with Bin Laden because it is easier for us to do "deal with the smallest issue first."
Unlike many people I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican, not liberal or conservative. Every great political/ethical issue (war comes to mind) deserves the reasoned consent of the governed, it does not require us all to be "team players" or party hacks. Thousands have died based on our consent, it would be best if our consent is informed rather than rubber-stamped in "a frenzy." That way the governed are able to take moral and ethical responsibilty for the acts it's goverment engages in, rather than rationalizing them after the fact.</p>
<p>What happened to the Rockefeller Republicans?
That would be worth talking about, don't you think.</p>
<p>I think we needed Kerry to restore our international credibility. Bush has seen to it that pretty much every country is opposed to how we handled the war. In England the tories (conservatives) ran on an anti-bush platform!! And this is the party of Margaret Thatcher.</p>
<p>How could he restore our international credibility?? Basically whatever Bush's foreign policy was he was the opposite....kerry said we needed a joint coalition in iraq but that we didnt in dealing with North Korea???? North Korea is way more powerful</p>
<p>Also kerry wanted us to join the international court system which would allow other nations to arrest or charge our troops with crimes....do we really want to be at the mercy of WHATS POPULAR??...i think not</p>
<p>There is no use chasing Saddam Hussein , if that idiot BUSH FAILED TO CATCH OUR MAIN ENEMY - OSAMA BIN LADDEN. can't you see he's trying to divert attention to Iraq because of this? And yes, drownindreams, a couple of thousands died in the war, but we are talking about HUMAN LIVES here. People are dying for no strong reason. The whole Iraq war is simply used to secure Bush's political popularity. If Kerry was president, America would gain back respect as well as ALLIANCES in the world. CANT YOU SEE BUSH IS HATED IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD? Whereever he goes, there is always a huge crowd of protesters.</p>
<p>Remember, BIN LADEN first (after 4 years) , then anyone else. After all, he's the one responsible for 9/11. And he's still sendind videos threatening America.Bush is such a jack***!!</p>
<p>yes regain respect but at what price???? read my above msge</p>
<p>I'm curious to know why most of the posts in this thread only consider the death of soldiers as casualties of the war. If you include Iraqi civilians, most estimates exceed 30,000, many as high as 100,000.
1500 American deaths is in itself a great moral cost, but I would hate to think that those Iraqi civilians who lost there life are simply written off. A few posters have mentioned the thousands of Iraqi's killed by Saddam; are we to believe only Iraqi's killed by Saddam had any moral worth?
Whether you were/are for the war or you were/are against it, you must deal with the totality of the consequences not just the parts that support your parochial view.</p>
<p>Much more would have died by Saddam even though we accidentaly killed a few....are you telling me that you do care about the Iraqis? if so then why is this war not justified if even for the wrong reasons?</p>