Acceptable Casualties

[Yogi]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

[Queeb Salaron]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

ACCEPTABLE?! How heartless is THAT? It's like we can make one of those big thermometer graphs they use for fundraising, and fill in another inch of it in red for every 100 Americans that die until we get to the top, at which point we say, "Ok, now it's OFFICIALLY a REALLY bad war. We better pull out."

I'm sorry for going off like this, but this kind of thing really gets to me. We're talking about the death of people who are trying to defend us, and Yogi at least is being as cool as a cucumber about it. Essentially you're reducing soldiers to nothing but numbers, ambivolently adding a tally slash every time one is sent to the meat grinder. ::Sighs:: That's almost as horiffic as killing them yourself, IMO.

[Sea Skimmer]

ACCEPTABLE?! How heartless is THAT? It's like we can make one of those big thermometer graphs they use for fundraising, and fill in another inch of it in red for every 100 Americans that die until we get to the top, at which point we say, "Ok, now it's OFFICIALLY a REALLY bad war. We better pull out."

I'm sorry for going off like this, but this kind of thing really gets to me. We're talking about the death of people who are trying to defend us, and Yogi at least is being as cool as a cucumber about it. Essentially you're reducing soldiers to nothing but numbers, ambivolently adding a tally slash every time one is sent to the meat grinder. ::Sighs:: That's almost as horiffic as killing them yourself, IMO.

You're just an idiot with no concept of real life. WAR KILLS! No fucking shit. And when you engage in it you must decide what you find acceptable. Doing nothing out of fear of losing men doesnt fucking work, thats how WW1 managed to be followed by a far that killed several times more people.

Deciding that you feel a given gain is worth a loss doesn't mean you don't care. But I guess your thick skull can't accept that.

[Darth Wong]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

Pulling out is not an option at this point. The repercussions on the credibility of the US worldwide would be catastrophic.

[aerius]

People die in wars, that is a fact. The generals leading the war understand this, so do the commanders out in the field, so do the footsoldiers doing the dying on the frontlines. Unfortunately far too many people in the civilian population don't. I'd say that once we hit about 5000 casualties and most likely far less than that the public & politicians back home will start shitting their pants and crying about "needless blood spillage". Personally, I wouldn't start worrying until we hit something like 20% casualties, and if things are going that bad there's nothing a little carpet bombing won't solve.

[Queeb Salaron]

You're just an idiot with no concept of real life. WAR KILLS! No fucking shit.

WAR HAS NO PLACE IN MY LIFE! My "real life" exists independent of violence, so yes, these kinds of broad, sweeping, ambivolent statements about the deaths of people that are sons, daughters, husbands, and fathers offend me. Because ALL of those people exist in REAL LIFE. And regardless of how they go about doing it, and how necessary someone claims it is, those sons, daughters, wives, mothers, husbands, fathers and friends ARE DYING. "REAL LIFE" PEOPLE ARE DYING, AND YOU COOLY REDUCE THEM TO TALLY MARKS. Have some respect!

And when you engage in it you must decide what you find acceptable.

Who has the authority to say that 999 men dead is ok, but 1000 is too much? As far as I'm concerned, there is only one justfied death, and that is the death of Sadaam Hussein. Every other death, military or civilian, is excessive.

Doing nothing out of fear of losing men doesnt fucking work, thats how WW1 managed to be followed by a far that killed several times more people.

That's speculation; I've heard more reasons for WWI leading to WWII than I care to list, and that has never been one of them. Besides, Hitler had no qualms about losing men, either. He was ambivolent to any sort of death at all. What did that earn him? A top spot on the list of the most ruthless men to ever walk the earth.

Deciding that you feel a given gain is worth a loss doesn't mean you don't care. But I guess your thick skull can't accept that.

Fine. If you do care so much, though, stop talking about people like they're fucking numbers! Regardless of their uniform (or lack thereof), these are human lives we're dealing with, not robots that we fear will be tampered with and shut down. But I guess your stone heart can't accept that.

[Axis Kast]

I agree with Wong.

[Yogi]

o_O

I realise that some of the stuff I post will attract flames, but I didn't think this would be one of them.

Yeah, acceptable. After a while, if it turns out Saddam actually knows what he's doing, the US government will start to think "perhaps we need to re-think this." I don't agree with Mr. Wong that there will be NO condition in which there is a pullout (unless we pull out and then turn Iraq into molten glass, which would also be bad.) There WILL be a situation when pulling out is inevitable, like half of America is dead (an EXTREME example, but still a situation in which we will probably decide to bail.) The question is, how high?

The entire business of war is "a bunch of people die now, so we save the lives of an even greater number down the road." It's not nice just thinking about them as numbers, but that's the only way to make a rational descision.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

ACCEPTABLE?! How heartless is THAT? It's like we can make one of those big thermometer graphs they use for fundraising, and fill in another inch of it in red for every 100 Americans that die until we get to the top, at which point we say, "Ok, now it's OFFICIALLY a REALLY bad war. We better pull out."

I'm sorry for going off like this, but this kind of thing really gets to me. We're talking about the death of people who are trying to defend us, and Yogi at least is being as cool as a cucumber about it. Essentially you're reducing soldiers to nothing but numbers, ambivolently adding a tally slash every time one is sent to the meat grinder. ::Sighs:: That's almost as horiffic as killing them yourself, IMO.

How the fuck else do you think a war is faught?

Simply, human emotional reaction doesn't feel for abstract anonymous numbers that strongly. Live with it.

[Master of Ossus]

I concur with DW. The US armed forces really can't pull out, now, regardless of the casualties. Unless the war continues for several months, with several thousand American deaths, I really don't see the US leaving any time soon.

[Queeb Salaron]

::Sighs:: I don't mean to flame you, Yogi, or Skimmer, and I apologize for getting carried away. I probably shouldn't be posting on this thread at all, considering all this talk is just making me angry and irrational.

I still don't like the idea of people saying, "Ok, how much is TOO much?" From a more sadistic point of view, I'd argue that you pro-war types were the ones that started this conflict, you'd better not pull out until the job is done. Hell, even I would go over there and fight if it meant that this friggin' war would end faster. At this point, that's the only hope I have to cling to: It'll all be over soon.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip whiny liberal bleeding-heart "you raped my compassion" bullshit*

Cut the personal attacks and judgement on Skimmer you dipshit. It isn't his fault that you don't comprehend the sheer harshness and grim reality of life. Its survival of the strong, and the weak institutions get pushed aside and abused. This is nature. It can be cruel, and steps should be taken to lessen it, but cut the shit about judging people who, like most people, just don't strongly associate emotions with numbers.

War is cold. Period.

[fgalkin]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

Pulling out is not an option at this point. The repercussions on the credibility of the US worldwide would be catastrophic.

Of course. I never believed that anyone could be so stupid as to suggest withdrawal from the war right now.

No, hold it, I KNOW people who are suggesting that.
Ugh.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Queeb Salaron]

How the fuck else do you think a war is faught?

Simply, human emotional reaction doesn't feel for abstract anonymous numbers that strongly. Live with it.

I understand this point of view: Military types HAVE to be a bit cold, otherwise the semantics would clog up the works. Ok, I'll concede this point. But I still don't like it.

How can we claim that this war is moral when we won't even recognize soldiers as human?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

War is war, people die, and when it comes to actuallywinningwars, there comes a point when the individual is lost - and the numbers take precedence.

There isn't any other way to remove Saddam, and if thats what Bush is intent on doing, then soldiers are going to have to go fight and die for their country.

Aside, the men who joined the service know the risks, they knew that when they went into the service, they could be shipped off to the Middle East and get shot, and while we can mourn their loss, it wastheirdecision to go fight. And while the civilians have no choice, it ends up better for them in the end.

That said, casualties suck for everyone, but they're obviously going to happen in a war.

[Enforcer Talen]

war itself is never moral, even if the actions which you wish it to cause are.

and, I think losing around 5000 would start causing disturbances.

[Queeb Salaron]

Cut the personal attacks and judgement on Skimmer you dipshit. It isn't his fault that you don't comprehend the sheer harshness and grim reality of life.

I'm deeply sorry that YOUR life is full of such torment that war is just another walk in the park for you. I feel for you. I really do. I, on the other hand, have no reason to equate my life with the mass slaughter of Iraqis and Coalition forces alike.

Its survival of the strong, and the weak institutions get pushed aside and abused. *snip yadda yadda yadda Social Darwinist bullshit theory that applies only to war and not to society as it existed prior to Sept. 11.*

Just because there is a war going on does not mean that we as civilians are required to let our humanity fall by the wayside and assume the mindset of a war-hardened General contemplating casualty-to-objective completion ratios. We can be more human than that, and I choose to do so.

War is cold. Period.

Yes. But we don't have to freeze with it.

[weemadando]

I believe that about the time the US KIA list reaches 500 the US media will begin to turn on the war, by the time it reaches 1000 most of the media outlets will be against a war.

The US can't pull out for political reasons, but they sure as hell can lose public support.

[Queeb Salaron]

There isn't any other way to remove Saddam, and if thats what Bush is intent on doing, then soldiers are going to have to go fight and die for their country.

Aside, the men who joined the service know the risks, they knew that when they went into the service, they could be shipped off to the Middle East and get shot, and while we can mourn their loss, it wastheirdecision to go fight. And while the civilians have no choice, it ends up better for them in the end.

That said, casualties suck for everyone, but they're obviously going to happen in a war.

THIS position is WORLDS more humane (or at least worded better) than the others I've responded to. Kudos.

[jegs2]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

Pulling out is not an option at this point. The repercussions on the credibility of the US worldwide would be catastrophic.

Mike is right. We must finish this.

[Wicked Pilot]

Assuming that all does not go well and the war appears to be dragging on, how many US casualties do you is acceptable before we should pull out?

We would only pull out only if there was nothing left to liberate. At that point we would have failed politically, as the liberation of the Iraqi people is necessary to legitimize the invasion. Of course if that happened, then you could be rest assured that it would be a long time before any other nation would try and fuck with us or our allies again.

[Edi]

Mike said everything that really needed to be said.

However, in front of me is the April 7 issue of Time Magazine and according to the Time/CNN poll in it:

Was the American government too optimistic in what it told the public would probably happen in the war with Iraq?
Yes - 55%
No - 38%

*****

How much longer do you think the war will last?
<2 weeks - 2%
2 - 4 weeks - 13%
1 - 3 months - 32%
4 months to over a year - 46%

*****

Would you support the war in Iraq if it resulted in the deaths of as many as...

...500 US troops?
Yes - 59%
No - 33%
Not sure - 8%

...1000 US troops?
Yes - 47%
No - 41%
Not sure - 12%

...5000 US troops?
Yes - 34%
No - 50%
Not sure - 16%

...500 Iraqi civilians?
Yes - 63%
No - 29%
Not sure - 8%

...1000 Iraqi civilians?
Yes - 50%
No - 39%
Not sure - 11%

...5000 Iraqi civilians?
Yes - 40%
No - 47%
Not sure - 13%

****

If the US removes Saddam Hussein from power, but does not capture or kill him, would you consider the military action a victory for the US?
Yes - 34%
No - 62%

****

If Iraq uses chemical weapons against US troops, do you think the US should respond by using battlefield nuclear weapons against Iraqi soldiers?
Yes - 42%
No - 51%

****

In general, do you think the media are acting responsibly or irresponsibly in their coverage of the war in Iraq?
Responsibly - 62%
Irresponsibly - 31%

****

Do you have a generally favorable or unfavorable impressions of these world leaders?

George W. Bush
Favorable - 67%
Unfavorable - 30%
Not familiar - 2%

Tony blair
Favorable - 72%
Unfavorable - 10%
Not familiar - 16%

Jacques Chirac
Favorable - 12%
Unfavorable - 57%
Not familiar - 29%

From a telephone poll of 1014 adult Americans taken for Time CNN, March 27, by Harris Interactive. Margin of error +/-3.1% "Not sures" omitted for some questions.

There's the general American response to the war. The casualty question answer results are absolutely idiotic...

Edi

[Illuminatus Primus]

If Iraq uses chemical weapons against US troops, do you think the US should respond by using battlefield nuclear weapons against Iraqi soldiers?
Yes - 42%
No - 51%

That yes is a tad high for my taste.

[Beowulf]

If Iraq uses chemical weapons against US troops, do you think the US should respond by using battlefield nuclear weapons against Iraqi soldiers?
Yes - 42%
No - 51%

That yes is a tad high for my taste.

It's a bit low for my taste, considering I know what the US response will be, which is using tac nukes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If Iraq uses chemical weapons against US troops, do you think the US should respond by using battlefield nuclear weapons against Iraqi soldiers?
Yes - 42%
No - 51%

That yes is a tad high for my taste.

It's a bit low for my taste, considering I know what the US response will be, which is using tac nukes.

The U.S. would never use tac nukes unless we were attacked by overwhelming conventional forces or nuked ourselves.