3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,349]

I love how critical everyone is about the US but no one touches the oil for food scandal. Part of why we went in was because France, Germany and the UN lied and used the UN as a manipulative tool. Plus our troops were the troops sent in the last time around.

I love how people act as if we hadn't gone into this war we wouldn't have gotten involved. Who's troops bailed out Kuwait the last time? Why is it that you suggest that if they were going after other countries it wouldn't have been our issue? It's always our issue when our troops are the ones that die. Are people suggesting the deaths in the Persian Gulf war don't count because it wasn't our war?

This second war was nothing to do with Iraq attacking anyone else. There is a huge difference in the circumstances between the two.

The first Gulf War was UN backed and supported by most of the World including the Arab nations. It was US lead but was a huge multinational effort. It was a case of the US and the Coalition defending an ally under attack from an aggressor.

The second war against Iraq was a different circumstance altogether. The US and UK started this war on a false premise. That premise was that Saddam was harbouring WMDs. Those WMDs have never been found.

What exactly are the French, Germans and UN supposed to have lied about? They said there was insufficient evidence of WMDs to justify a war. As there are no WMDs it likes like they may have been right.

I bought into the justification for the second war. I still think that the World is a better place without Saddam leading a country (although with the growing loss of life I wonder if it was really worth the cost). I still hope that the information provided by the British talking about WMDs being ready to launch in 45 minutes was a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate lie, but to accuse the French and Germans of being the liars in this case is to totally ignore the reality of the fact that they were right and we were wrong.

[Anubi 0]

Well, the US gave saddam the green light for the kuwait invasion, it's not conspiracy theory .

here's one link, but there many more, this one probably isnt the most reliable of links, im not sure, its the first one i came across .

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_MadeInUSA.html

but look into it further , saddam has had a history of being the good guy or bad depending on us foreign policy at the time.

And your soldiers are dying , along with Iraqis and on the back of your tax dollar for US corporations that are getting obnoxiously fat on the obscene profits of this war . Don't blame the iraqi's , they are just fighting for their country, just as you would do.

And nobody called the US in, it was planned back in 1997 . Read up on PNAC if you really want to know why the US invaded Iraq.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Anubi

[el midgetron 8]

Well, the US gave saddam the green light for the kuwait invasion, it's not conspiracy theory .

Yeah, I tend to believe this. I didnt follow the link but I know whats behind it. It makes sense when you consider the US had very good relations with Saddam upto the point when he invaded Kuwait. It also makes sense that Saddam would be careful not to jeopardize his beneficial relations with the west over a poo-poo coountry like kuwait. I still don't understand why we stopped short of removing him in 91' though.

Edited January 5, 2007 by el midgetron

[explorer 0]

Yeah, I tend to believe this. I didnt follow the link but I know whats behind it. It makes sense when you consider the US had very good relations with Saddam upto the point when he invaded Kuwait. It also makes sense that Saddam would be careful not to jeopardize his beneficial relations with the west over a poo-poo coountry like kuwait. I still don't understand why we stopped short of removing him in 91' though.

Because in '91 the US could see itself getting into the sort of mess it is actually in now.

Here's that Cheney quote from '92 that I posted on Pg 11.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Link sourced from Link

[truethat 2]

This second war was nothing to do with Iraq attacking anyone else. There is a huge difference in the circumstances between the two.

The first Gulf War was UN backed and supported by most of the World including the Arab nations. It was US lead but was a huge multinational effort. It was a case of the US and the Coalition defending an ally under attack from an aggressor.

The second war against Iraq was a different circumstance altogether. The US and UK started this war on a false premise. That premise was that Saddam was harbouring WMDs. Those WMDs have never been found.

What exactly are the French, Germans and UN supposed to have lied about? They said there was insufficient evidence of WMDs to justify a war. As there are no WMDs it likes like they may have been right.

I bought into the justification for the second war. I still think that the World is a better place without Saddam leading a country (although with the growing loss of life I wonder if it was really worth the cost). I still hope that the information provided by the British talking about WMDs being ready to launch in 45 minutes was a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate lie, but to accuse the French and Germans of being the liars in this case is to totally ignore the reality of the fact that they were right and we were wrong.

I agree with everything you wrote. But the thread is asking is Saddam being gone worth 3000 soldiers. My take is does it matter which war the soldiers were lost in? Its not as if this was the only war that we would have been dragged into. Either way we would have lost lives trying to defeat him.

The French and Germans and UN lied about the oil for food campaign. Oil-for-Food Programme Actually my original criticism was directed at China, not sure if Germany was in on it.

Edited January 5, 2007 by truethat

[truth's last stand 0]

I agree with everything you wrote. But the thread is asking is Saddam being gone worth 3000 soldiers. My take is does it matter which war the soldiers were lost in? Its not as if this was the only war that we would have been dragged into. Either way we would have lost lives trying to defeat him.

The French and Germans and UN lied about the oil for food campaign. Oil-for-Food Programme Actually my original criticism was directed at China, not sure if Germany was in on it.

You're right. Whoever said that our soldiers aren't dying for us is a crock. They may not be dying for a just war, or even a just cause, but they're dying for their country and their buddies over there, for that matter. I believe either the French or the Germans were giving missles to Saddam (along with Russia) before the war started, and the UN is a joke. Kofi Annan tried to come out looking like a saint when he stepped down but his hands were dirty and covered with blood. I guess it would also be worth asking if the war in Afghanistan was worth losing soldiers in? After all, Osama is still loose, the Taliban is back in full force, and our most prolific soldier death (Pat Tillman) was by one of our own.

Edited January 5, 2007 by truth's last stand

[Lord Umbarger 4]

Both fronts in the Terror War are similar in at least one way, in both nations we are fighting an enemy that is backed by a third party. In Iraq, it's Iran, just recently Iranian soldiers were shot while inside of Iraq. In Afganistan, it Pakastan hiding Terrorists and appearently, Taliban also. Best case senario is that they are not actively hiding them but, are unable or unwilling to assist us in hunting them down.

[el midgetron 8]

Because in '91 the US could see itself getting into the sort of mess it is actually in now.

Here's that Cheney quote from '92 that I posted on Pg 11.

Link sourced from Link

Yeah, I guess I just think theres more to it.

[truth's last stand 0]

Best case senario is that they are not actively hiding them but, are unable or unwilling to assist us in hunting them down.

Somehow I doubt that on both counts, though. After all, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, and Iran isn't exactly "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." If Pakistan wasn't involved, we would be able to continue the bin Laden search within their borders.

[AROCES 2]

Yeah, I tend to believe this. I didnt follow the link but I know whats behind it. It makes sense when you consider the US had very good relations with Saddam upto the point when he invaded Kuwait. It also makes sense that Saddam would be careful not to jeopardize his beneficial relations with the west over a poo-poo coountry like kuwait. I still don't understand why we stopped short of removing him in 91' though.

- Maybe because he was not that bad as you said, that is why we didn't remove him in 91?

[Avinash_Tyagi 1]

You're right. Whoever said that our soldiers aren't dying for us is a crock. They may not be dying for a just war, or even a just cause, but they're dying for their country and their buddies over there, for that matter. I believe either the French or the Germans were giving missles to Saddam (along with Russia) before the war started, and the UN is a joke. Kofi Annan tried to come out looking like a saint when he stepped down but his hands were dirty and covered with blood. I guess it would also be worth asking if the war in Afghanistan was worth losing soldiers in? After all, Osama is still loose, the Taliban is back in full force, and our most prolific soldier death (Pat Tillman) was by one of our own.

No they aren't, we were never in danger from Iraq

[Anubi 0]

Who you die for , in war, is only a matter of perspective . On the greater scale , they die for the US corporations . On a personal level and for those that care for them .. they die for the usa.

You may hate me for that, but one day, you will know the truth of why your army is in iraq and you will say the same.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Anubi

[truth's last stand 0]

No they aren't, we were never in danger from Iraq

Did I say we were? I believe I said Iraq was neither a just war nor a just cause. But the soldiers that are fighting are fighting for their country. The ones whose intentions are less than sparkling are the ones who sent them to war. This is why conservatives say that opposing the war means opposing the troops as well.

[Lord Umbarger 4]

we were never in danger from Iraq

If his expansionist dreams had not been checked when they were, he might have ended up controling a large portion of the one thing that the world needs to continue functioning like we're accustomed to. With the turn of one "knob", so to speak, one man would've effectively had the power to shut down the U.S. economy every time we did something that he didn't like. He could've ended up being more powerful than all the OPEC nations combined in at least that sence. That would have been a danger to the U.S. It would've been a danger to the free world.

That is not to say that there will never be another wacko with similar intensions in the future.

[Avinash_Tyagi 1]

If his expansionist dreams had not been checked when they were, he might have ended up controling a large portion of the one thing that the world needs to continue functioning like we're accustomed to. With the turn of one "knob", so to speak, one man would've effectively had the power to shut down the U.S. economy every time we did something that he didn't like. He could've ended up being more powerful than all the OPEC nations combined in at least that sence. That would have been a danger to the U.S. It would've been a danger to the free world.

That is not to say that there will never be another wacko with similar intensions in the future.

We shattered those ambitions in '91

Did I say we were? I believe I said Iraq was neither a just war nor a just cause. But the soldiers that are fighting are fighting for their country. The ones whose intentions are less than sparkling are the ones who sent them to war. This is why conservatives say that opposing the war means opposing the troops as well.

No they're fighting for the ones who sent them to war, they'd be fighting for America if we were gaining some benefit from the war,, these politicians are throwing away their lives for nothing

Edited January 5, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Lord Umbarger 4]

I believe I said Iraq was neither a just war nor a just cause.

You've never seen any of my numerous posts listing the cease fire agreements that Saddams Iraq violated?

[truethat 2]

Um you all are still not getting my point. GRRR. LOL

What DIFFERENCE does it make whether Saddam was a threat to the US in particular when our TROOPS still would be called into service even if he wasn't a threat to the US? Back then when the world was cozy with the US it was cozy to be sure that we'd fight their wars for them. They relied on US military to intervene when requested.

The Coalition

The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle

Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle

Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle

Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle

Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)

Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

Iraq

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements

6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements

68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground

137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran

3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks

2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles

2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces

19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged

42 divisions made combat-ineffective

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.

The Cost

The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food.

How come its ok for this many people to die in the Persian Gulf war and no one bats and eyelash. Why? Well because the world wanted us to be there FOR THEM. As long as the US is fighting other people's wars its no problem.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

Here's a rundown btw

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

You aren't answering my question. What difference does it make about the number of troops lost? Is it better that they are lost fighting for Kuwait? Or Afghanistan? Why does the number only matter when its dying for our own country?

[Anubi 0]

looks like those nasty iranians will be turning that knob now ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6190865.stm

[Anubi 0]

Truethat, you have to remember that the bush era wasn't only a shock to the US people , it affected everybody . Nobody expected a president like that, most people were trying to convince themselves that the events of world war 1 and 2 would never happen again.. we had become civilized , we had overcome whatever it was that caused us to do what we did back then ... we almost succeeded we almost exorcized ourselves, then bush arrived and showed us we hadn't got so far afterall , that it could still happen. It's a great disappointment . It's different now, people do see the USA in another light . Not the light we used to see in the past , it's different now . Maybe there will be a new world order who knows, but hopefully one for the good of all, not for greed of the few . I'm sure america will be back and the rest of the world whining for help as usual, but its balance we need , not war .

[truethat 2]

Great post. I agree. But unfortunately some people just want war. Its not necessarily the US. When we have the military might we are expected to fight for others. Take a look at the percentage of people fighting of all the allied forces combined from all the other countries it came up to 24 percent of the troops involved. All because some jackwad can't deal with the fact that a Jew has made a go of it on their land.

All because one group hates another group. If the one thing that comes out of this war is that the US is not ever trusted enough again to be called into battle for another country, I would consider it well worth it.

[AROCES 2]

Truethat, you have to remember that the bush era wasn't only a shock to the US people , it affected everybody . Nobody expected a president like that, most people were trying to convince themselves that the events of world war 1 and 2 would never happen again.. we had become civilized , we had overcome whatever it was that caused us to do what we did back then ... we almost succeeded we almost exorcized ourselves, then bush arrived and showed us we hadn't got so far afterall , that it could still happen. It's a great disappointment . It's different now, people do see the USA in another light . Not the light we used to see in the past , it's different now . Maybe there will be a new world order who knows, but hopefully one for the good of all, not for greed of the few . I'm sure america will be back and the rest of the world whining for help as usual, but its balance we need , not war .

Wait a minute here, you talk like Bush is the coming of another Hitler or Saddam, just went in there to invade a country and rule it.

You simply don't agree with how he wants to defend his country that was attacked on 9/11, you think it would have been a more peaceful world if Bush didn't go into Iraq and get rid of a Tyrant once and for all that has been a headache for the World since he ruled Iraq?

Anti war people thinks that they are serving humanity at best when they simply go against any war. At times in doing so, the dead bodies keep piling up, but there is no war. And when the Tyrant is gone, we dig up the mass graves. BUT NO WAR!

[truethat 2]

Wait a minute here, you talk like Bush is the coming of another Hitler or Saddam, just went in there to invade a country and rule it.

You simply don't agree with how he wants to defend his country that was attacked on 9/11, you think it would have been a more peaceful world if Bush didn't go into Iraq and get rid of a Tyrant once and for all that has been a headache for the World since he ruled Iraq?

Anti war people thinks that they are serving humanity at best when they simply go against any war. At times in doing so, the dead bodies keep piling up, but there is no war. And when the Tyrant is gone, we dig up the mass graves. BUT NO WAR!

I agree with that too. Basically comparing the numbers this war makes out better than our Peaceful efforts at embargoes. How many people were killed because of that? Doesn't count if its not a war right.

According to this, prior to the war there were 2 million deaths as a result of the embargo.

http://www.ilaam.net/War/IraqEmbargo.html

Edited January 5, 2007 by truethat

[Avinash_Tyagi 1]

Wait a minute here, you talk like Bush is the coming of another Hitler or Saddam, just went in there to invade a country and rule it.

You simply don't agree with how he wants to defend his country that was attacked on 9/11, you think it would have been a more peaceful world if Bush didn't go into Iraq and get rid of a Tyrant once and for all that has been a headache for the World since he ruled Iraq?

Anti war people thinks that they are serving humanity at best when they simply go against any war. At times in doing so, the dead bodies keep piling up, but there is no war. And when the Tyrant is gone, we dig up the mass graves. BUT NO WAR!

Actually yeah, there was no need to invade Iraq, there was more stability in the world prior to our invasion

[truethat 2]

So 2 millions deaths is considered stability to you?

[Anubi 0]

Wait a minute here, you talk like Bush is the coming of another Hitler or Saddam, just went in there to invade a country and rule it.

You simply don't agree with how he wants to defend his country that was attacked on 9/11, you think it would have been a more peaceful world if Bush didn't go into Iraq and get rid of a Tyrant once and for all that has been a headache for the World since he ruled Iraq?

Anti war people thinks that they are serving humanity at best when they simply go against any war. At times in doing so, the dead bodies keep piling up, but there is no war. And when the Tyrant is gone, we dig up the mass graves. BUT NO WAR!

That tired old argument is so out of date , im not even going to bother discuss it with you. If your own leaders don't believe that saddam was a threat , why should I listen to a half wit like you ?