Date: 2/9/2004 11:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 53961
As I was reading your post a scripture came to mind that kind of says it all. "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." 1 Nephi 4: 13 (Book of Mormon) No one wants war and no one wants to lose a loved one in war, but sometimes we all will need to make a life changing decision that may impact a whole nation or perhaps just one person. These men and women have not died in vain and their fellow comrades are continuing the fight for a freedom suppressed by evil.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 11:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 9130
No.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 12:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 25556
Imnot really sure how to answer this. You expressed alot of good points here. Based on christianity and morals and such, I would have to say that the Americans who risked their lives for the freedom of the iraqis are people to be remembered and honored to the fullest account. The Iraqis weren't just in need of freedom. These people were tortured horribly. Saddam didnt care if they ate dirt. The fact that all those people were freed I think was in a way worth it because they saved so many others. YET, I cant say that our Americans actually had a choice in that matter. Politically this might not be correct, I agree, because the american soldiers surrender themselves to the army thinking they will be serving THEIR country. But morally I say it was courageous and worth it in the lond run though i would probably never have the guts to do something like that myself.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
the question to the problem was originally "will we get the WMD's?" well i dont know about anyone else but when im taking a test i cant go all A.D.D. and put something like "......We free'd them" i mean that just would not work, answer the question that was asked and move on from there  |
Date: 2/9/2004 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 12835
If you look at the human suffering that Saddam and his sons caused, then yes. For securing the world from WMD's, then I would say no.  |
|
Date: 2/9/2004 1:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 25160
Complacency has caused over 3000 deaths on 9/11. This war was necessary for more than one reason. The people of Iraq would still be under a vicious dictatorship, would still starve while Saddam and his ruthless sons live in luxury, the innocents would still be rotting in Iraqi prisons, and Saddam would still be funding terrorists in the Middle East (fact). The price of complacency has proven to be higher than the price of a war to fight terrorism. It was a just war. |
|
Date: 2/9/2004 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 25160
.... and even if WMD were not found, I still maintain that thousands of Iraqis have been saved from horrible deaths in the future at the hands of Saddam, his sons, and their horrible dictatorship. |
Date: 2/9/2004 1:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
I don't think there ever were WMD in Iraq at the time the US and UK went to war, but the crucial thing is that evidence has emerged that they were TRYING, in breach of all UN regulations. Alongside this, thousands more Iraqis would probably have died under Saddam had his rule continued. Personally, I think the war was the lesser of two evils.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 1:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 13729
Of course it is not worth it......But War is a money making machine, a cash cow......And this war really is nothing if but for oil......For some good research, check out info on the Vietnam war... Between 1963 and 1975 the U.S. had a hand in killing 4 million people in Southeast Asia all because North Vietnam also wanted South Vietnam.....A tiny little country half way around the globe, and and we had to go through all that......Ridiculous.......  |
|
Date: 2/9/2004 1:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
So the Iraqi lives saved weren't worth it either? |
Date: 2/9/2004 2:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
No it wasn't worth losing over 500 men and wounding over 2000. We're not talking burns and scratches here... we're talking limbs blown off. The Arab countries hate us even more. We're no more safe... in fact we're probably worse off that way. The white house admitted that Iraq wasn't involved in 911 and now probably didn't have wmds. We don't even have cheaper oil prices ... so no. Whatever the agenda was it wasn't for us.  |
|
Date: 2/9/2004 2:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Fire storm would you give your life or encourage your children to give theirs to save Iraqis? And what about the billions that were spent on so called 'rebuilding'? |
Date: 2/9/2004 4:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
Is one life worth more than another? Do the lives of the million people that Sadam has killed have no value?  |
|
Date: 2/9/2004 4:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 12835
I have to agree with Bob. ( I hope no one reads this post now. ) My brother is a Colonel in the Army, and has been in Baghdad since the beginning. He feels it was worth it for those people. He risked his life for them, and never a complaint did he have, other than missing his own family.... |
Date: 2/9/2004 4:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
Was the war worth it? I think it was. And if Iraq turns into a more productive country down the road because of this, maybe it will even help to reduce war in that region. Probably not for a while though, but it could be a start. --  |
Date: 2/9/2004 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
First off people join the military for a variety of reasons. But their main mission is to follow the orders of the Government and commander in chief. As to the Iraq war being worth it. We're far from the point of being able to say anything, this isn't microwave popcorn folks. We have ousted a dictator and are trying to set up a government and a constitution. How long did it take the U.S. to pill that off? And we had a strong fundementalist religious structure to deal with as well. A stable Iraq is a good thing for the middle east and America. The war against terror is about a great many things, a government in the middle east intolerant toward terror is a big step. 500 Americans dead, regretable, very regretable, but they didn't die in vain, and I'm not willing to call their sacrifice wasted.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 5:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
I won't address whether we should have started the Iraqi operation, I will say now that we have started it we have to finish it or we will leave a worse problem than we began with. This will take years and will cost more lives. The payoff maybe 20 years down the road with a real Arab ally in the Middle East if we do this right.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 6:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
there are people here at USM (myself included) that had family that have served, and continue to serve, in this war. On those grounds, I prefer not to say either way for fear of minimizing their dedication.  |
Date: 2/9/2004 8:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 7830
It's not just the 500 americans killed that make this war not worth it, it's also the many Iraqi civilians that have been killed and injured that add to that. Our citizens are no more important than theirs. I'll never agree with this war.  |
Date: 2/10/2004 6:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Were the costs associated with the war in Iraq greater than the benefits? IMO, no. If, as it appears now, our intelligence on the WMD's was faulty, we still did what was necessary. First, this was a situation in which a decision had to made based on available information. Had the President known the information to be false, he could rightly be accused of lying to the public and rushing into an unnecessary war. I think he understood the information to be reliable and the CIA to be trustworthy. To wait until all possible objections were overcome would have been unwise: Saddam had a history of using WMD's, America was staggering from 9/11 and anti-American sentiment was strong. I believe it was the right decision. Had I been in the military, I would have gone if called upon to do so. Finally, although the 500 deaths in the past months are tragic, 1,000 Americans have died in the past 24 hours as a result of cigarette smoking and some 500 were killed in that same 24 hours on American highways from drunk drivers. I think our energies would be better spent if we focused on chronic societal problems rather than on partisan bickering. I think the long-term benefits of a free Iraq will more than replace our investment.  |
|
Date: 2/10/2004 6:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Alfrowl makes a good point, and another: How many young Americans have been killed in the last year by drugs or as a result of the drug trade? And a majority of those opposed to the Iraq war would also favor less money and efforts spent on the war on drugs, if not legalization. |
Date: 2/10/2004 8:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
I could not agree with you more. The war was pointless. And to think I almost joined the army - thank God my mom talked me out of it.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 12:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 48809
Never!  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
did i just see the comment "it was just a war", cause i know i did and ya know what, go ask my dad if its just war. no wait, better yet ask my neighbor if its just a war, hes a former special forces medic and is now a combat medic for the airborne detachment here. oh how about this, ask the families of those who died if its JUST a war, yeah you'll think differently |
|
Date: 2/12/2004 1:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
The idea is not should we have gone into Iraq in the first place - was the end result worth it. I suppose at the moment it's hard to tell, but the sacrifices of those who gave their lives in this war should not be diminished. That said, I think it was completely worth it. In response to Koolade's comment, I honestly dont know. I'll never be in the army myself (medical reasons) so I doubt I'd be in that position. |
47162 Category:(Debate) Created:(2/9/2004 10:49:00 AM)