Twenty years from now....was it worth it?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman
Did we the U.S. gain anything by invading Iraq? I don't believe so. Iraq was contained. Surrounded on all sides and no ability to project power. We're not any safer today because Hussein is out of power.

 

Experts disagree with you, of course they're much more educated on the matter too, so its no surprise.

Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the U.N. as a member state, and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" was un-Islamic. They talked about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They were fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.

The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.

That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by banana
So you agree that there is a stalemate, then? If there were no stalemate,  there would be one country called Korea, and it would either be prosperous(i.e. South Korea) or it would not(i.e. North Korea).

I'm not arguing which part of Korea has it better. Any fool can see that North Korea is living in the stone age. What I'm asking is......was it worth all the US casualties?  

Is it possible for you to go beyond economics and think about the human cost of the widows and children of the US servicemen who died in the Korean War?

That's what this thread is intended to be about. But if you can't debate on that level, then I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, and you can have your way and "win".

How about the human cost of 25,000,000 million enslaved south koreans?  Actually not 25,000,000 - most of those people would never have existed due to the human rigts, food and economic polivies of the north if the north won the war...

The stunning depravity of the North Korean state all by itself is evidence enough that it was a good thing to oppose them. Then add  the simple comparsion between conditions in the north and south today and its perfectly clear that the war was worth it.

All that and the fact that we have two strong and free military, economic and cultural allies, South Korea and Japan, in the region for the rest of the cold war makes me absolutly convinced that it was worth it.

But go ahead banana, tell us all it wasnt...

[Wanker]

Yes, Grun, I understand your point about the effect the war had on Koreans.

My original question was, and still is....was it worth the cost in American lives and wounds and the effects on American families.

You haven't answered that question yet.

[GRUNHERZ]

banana how about this question..

Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

[Wanker]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
banana how about this question..

Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

[Toad]

banana you judge all of those wars with the benefit of hindsight. Would you have been able to come to the same conclusions a year or so after each ended?

Will it be worth it? I don't know; it depends on what success at installing democracy in the Middle East there is AND upon what effect that actually has over maybe a decade or so if it does get done.

Send me your Hindsightometer and I'll take another look though.

[SirLoin]

It wasn't worth one brave American life.

[Toad]

Well, Scholz, if you have one of those new-fangled Hindsightometers that lets you have 20 years of instant, totally correct Hindsight on today's affairs, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you see.

Then you'll be right in line with this thread topic.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Toad
Well, Scholz, if you have one of those new-fangled Hindsightometers that lets you have 20 years of instant, totally correct Hindsight on today's affairs, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you see.

Then you'll be right in line with this thread topic.

[Toad]

No, I haven't changed my well-documented position. You'll find my posts here saying the I generally do not support the US invading sovereign nations without legitimate cause under Just War theory. I also said I'd give the Bush admin the benefit of the doubt on this one but that I would require proof of their WMD claims at some reasonable point after the invasion/removal of Saddam. That time passed without proof, therefore I can see no reason for the war that qualifies under Just War theory.

I will be voting accordingly.

[GtoRA2]

WWI:  

Prolly not worth the dead. I do not know much about this war, much like the Civil war, it just does not interest me much.

Total US Casualties:  320,518

WWII:

Yes I have no doubt this War was worth the cost.

Total US Casualties: 1,077,245

Korean War:  

Yes, and it was a fight we needed to fight to show the commies in China and Russia that we would fight if pushed. Who knows were else the Sovs or Chinese would have aranged to have invaded if we had not fought here. I bet most South Koreans are very happy for our and their sacrafice. Americans died in the North Korean attack, we had to fight.

Total US Casualties:  157,530

Vietnam War:

No, we should never have gotten involved. In fact we should have given Ho Chi min his country for aiding us in WW2 agaist the Japanese, instead we caved to French presure and give them their colony back. If we had fought and won, and vietnam was a united free non commie nation, it may have been worth it.

Total US Casualties: 243,501

Gulf War:

Yeah, it was worth it.

Total US Casualties: 1,764

Iraq War:

It will be worth it if we stick around and do the job right, and by right I mean we stay untell the country is free and is holding its own real elections and is stable enough to manage itself. This will be a long time in coming.

It will not have been worth it if we pull out to soon and let those people down by letting a dictator or religous government take over.

Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting. [/B][/QUOTE]

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by banana
Yes, Grun, I understand your point about the effect the war had on Koreans.

My original question was, and still is....was it worth the cost in American lives and wounds and the effects on American families.

You haven't answered that question yet.

Yes I have.  

I'n my opinion it was worth it. It gave us strong allies in the region, strong trading partners, freed millions from north korean opression, it was also a clear rebuke of blatant military agression - lets not forget the north's regular army did invade the south - this was not a civil war in any traditional sense of the word.

So there thats my answer..

Also your question is basically disingenous.  You ask if these wars were worth it for the families of the dead US soldiers.. You demand that I answer for millions of famlies when it involves a war you disagree with... You exculde any mention of the impact on other people...

But when you agree with the war, like you do with the Gulf War you say it was all worth it because not fighting it would have led to a bigger war that involved Israel?  What does that have to do with the families of US soldiers if Israel fights? All of a sudden, when you agree with the war, the impact to foregin people matters in your question? But you say that it dioesnt matter what the result was for the Koreans..

You're full of it..

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Toad
banana you judge all of those wars with the benefit of hindsight. Would you have been able to come to the same conclusions a year or so after each ended?

Will it be worth it? I don't know; it depends on what success at installing democracy in the Middle East there is AND upon what effect that actually has over maybe a decade or so if it does get done.

Send me your Hindsightometer and I'll take another look though.

I agree 100%, Toad.  It was my intention to get people to think out of the box, so to speak, and think about how what appears to be a no-brainer decision today...may not seem to absolutely correct twenty years from now.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by GScholz
Given the title of the thread I would say that hindsight is the operative word for this thread.

Well..No..Some of us have been saying this from the beginning.

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
This thread is about speculation, not "totaly correct hindsight". Perhaps you should consider that when posting?

Yeah, banana gives examples/opinions of wars that, with one exception, are all more than 20 years in the past. Events that CAN be evaluated and assessed with the benefit of hindsight. ONLY with the benefit of hindsight.

This sets the stage for "speculation" on today's events as if that follows logically.

Speculate all you like; it's a waste of time. There's far too many variables to make any sort of intelligent, fact based assessment at this time. In short, it's pure guesswork.

But go ahead and pretend you can make a meaningful accounting right now.