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

[Wanker]

This is not intended to be an anti-war or anti-Bush post. My intention is to ask a serious question, one that we will need to answer, if nowhere else, in our own minds.  I am looking at this from two perspectives, a historical perspective, and a human perspective. Feel free to give your opnions, but please, LEAVE THE POLITICAL BICKERING OUT OF THIS THREAD!

Was the sacrifice worth it?

As we bounce our grandchildren on our laps, there will be thousands of children out there who won't have grandfathers and and grandmothers to do the same with them.

Was the sacrifice worth it?

Who will explain to them that it was more important for Iraqi children to grow up with grandparents than it was for THEM to grow up with grandparents?

Will that explanation matter to THEM?

And how will our generation be judged by them, as we have judged the generation before us?

These same questions seems to be asked with regularity by every other generation in the last 100 years.

Was the sacrifice worth it?

Source:  Dept of Veterans' Affairs.
http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

WWI:  I'd say no, it was not worth it.  As strange as this might sound, had Germany prevailed in WWI, WWII and the Holocaust may never have happened.  Kaiser Wilhelm II was certainly no butcher like Hitler was, so there was no real worry about a general enslavement of the free world.

Total US Casualties:  320,518

WWII: Yes, absolutely worth it. Undoubtedly the worst tragedy in the history of the world.  I personally experienced growing up with one fewer gradfather because of this war.

Total US Casualties: 1,077,245

Korean War:  Probably not. Would the spread of communism with the fall of South Korea have gone out of control and spread throughout SE Asia? Maybe, maybe not.

Total US Casualties:  157,530

Vietnam War: No, not worth it at all. We wrongly got involved in a civil war, and lost. One could argue that we didn't lose the war militarily, but I think there's no arguing the fact that the cause we were fighting for was lost.

Total US Casualties: 243,501

Gulf War: Yes,  it was probably worth it, for no other reason than our intervention may have prevented a [full-scale conflagration in the Gulf region, which may have ended up involving Israel.

Total US Casualties: 1,764

Iraq War: You tell me. Was it worth the sacrifice?

Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting.

[lasersailor184]

The only one that I would say Maybe to was WW1.  All the rest are a definate yes.  (The threat of communism was much greater than we realized now that documents from the Soviet Union are being released).


Now that I said they were worth it, I'll say that some of them weren't fought the right way.  Vietnam being at the head of that short list.  Had control been given to Generals instead of politicians, we would have won easily.  But we didn't and it's been 40 years.

[straffo]

Originally posted by banana
WWI:  I'd say no, it was not worth it.  As strange as this might sound, had Germany prevailed in WWI, WWII and the Holocaust may never have happened.  Kaiser Wilhelm II was certainly no butcher like Hitler was, so there was no real worry about a general enslavement of the free world.

Total US Casualties:  320,518

Actually with or without the US intervention I don't think the German monarchy would have survived the war.

[GRUNHERZ]

"Korean War: Probably not. Would the spread of communism with the fall of South Korea have gone out of control and spread throughout SE Asia? Maybe, maybe not. "

Nonsense...  Have you no clue what north korea is really like..

[Ripsnort]

banana, the unknowns are this: Had Saddam been allowed to continue to rule, how will we know that in 20 years, that nuke that goes off in Minneapolis/ST.Paul wasn't assembled in the desert of Northern Iraq while Saddam turned a blind eye to the terrorists that used his country for an outpost?

Pre-emptive still means "prevent".

[Wanker]

Ok Grun, so I'll chalk that up as a "Yes, it was worth 157,000 + US casualties to end up in a 50yr stalemate."

Got it.

[cpxxx]

Probably not unless Iraq becomes a stable and fair country and current events will be seen as the start of the end of extremism in the Middle East with a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.  If American tourists are visiting Iraq by then sailing down the Tigris, visiting Saddam's old palaces  in a friendly rich country like Dubai.  

Right now it could go either way.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
banana, the unknowns are this: Had Saddam been allowed to continue to rule, how will we know that in 20 years, that nuke that goes off in Minneapolis/ST.Paul wasn't assembled in the desert of Northern Iraq while Saddam turned a blind eye to the terrorists that used his country for an outpost?

Pre-emptive still means "prevent".

That's a good point, Rip. I guess the same could be said regarding the cold war. Did we prevent the Soviets from nuking us by having our deterrrent force?

I'd say, probably yes.

On the other hand, who's to say that Mpsl/St.Paul won't get nuked in 20 yrs regardless of what's going on in Iraq? Maybe Iraq has nothing to do with where the next terroist attack will come from?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana

On the other hand, who's to say that Mpsl/St.Paul won't get nuked in 20 yrs regardless of what's going on in Iraq? Maybe Iraq has nothing to do with where the next terroist attack will come from?

Exactly. So, our job is NOT finished in Iraq.  It must be eliminated from the face of the planet.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by straffo
Actually with or without the US intervention I don't think the German monarchy would have survived the war.

I agree, straffo. But without US involvment, I think the Germans would've continued to fight instead of give up in November 1918. The war ended before any German soil was conquered.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by banana
Ok Grun, so I'll chalk that up as a "Yes, it was worth 157,000 + US casualties to end up in a 40yr stalemate."

Got it.

You see that map and think stalemate?  The only "stale" state I see on that map is North Korea... No economy, no food, no freedom, no human rights, no press rights, no free travel, no free thought. Hundreds of thousands in concentration and death camps.. The main exports of north korea are missle parts and opium..  The government forces farmers to plantr opium poppies instead of food when they have millions of people starving near to death...

So thats North Korea for you...

What is this nonsense banana, have you no clue what a hellhole North Korea is?  

As for the south...

Do you even have a clue how much better the region is for having a vibrant, non agressive and productive economy in South Korea instead of the situation in the north..  They have a great economy, they export cars, electronics, they trade with the world. 25,000,000 useful and productive people...

So yea there is your "stalemate."

[Wanker]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You see that map and think stalemate?  The only "stale" state I see on that map is North Korea... No economy, no food, no freedom, no human rights, no press rights, no free travel, no free thought. Hundreds of thousands in concentration and death camps.. The main exports of north korea are missle parts and opium..  The government forces farmers to plantr opium poppies instead of food when they have millions of people starving near to death...

So thats North Korea for you...

What is this nonsense banana, have you no clue what a hellhole North Korea is?  

As for the south...

Do you even have a clue how much better the region is for having a vibrant, non agressive and productive economy in South Korea instead of the situation in the north..  They have a great economy, they export cars, electronics, they trade with the world. 25,000,000 useful and productive people...

So yea there is your "stalemate."

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".

[Sandman]

Originally posted by banana
Iraq War: You tell me. Was it worth the sacrifice?

Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting.

Historically... IIRC, look to the the U.S./Philippine conflict of 1898-1914. We are going to be in Iraq for decades.

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.

Israel scored big time. Hussein is gone and it has cost them nothing. Meanwhile, the U.S. costs in dollars and lives continues to tick away, day by day, week by week, year by year.

[Edbert]

What made Korea and Veitnam 'not worth it' by my definition is that we did not fight to win. We should never send a serviceman into battle without the full intention of utterly eliminating our enemies. Without that moral conviction we should not engage, it is 'not worth' the lives of our best citizens.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Historically... IIRC, look to the the U.S./Philippine conflict of 1898-1914. We are going to be in Iraq for decades.

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.

Israel scored big time. Hussein is gone and it has cost them nothing. Meanwhile, the U.S. costs in dollars and lives continues to tick away, day by day, week by week, year by year.

Sandman, do you think the Gulf War was worth it? I mean, Saddam did seem to have the ability to project power, at least to the south. Hard to say what the Iranians would've done eventually had he continued to attack neighboring countries.