peacenik

Those who favor immediate military action have done so because they fear that if we fail to take out Saddam immediately, he is likely sale WMD to al-Qaida, who will then sneak them into the U.S. and carry out another September 11th style attack. Athough I believe that this reasoning is extremely flawed, I am going to assume that it is correct for the sake of this particular poll which I believe asks a difficult question that I believe must be answered before we go to war with Iraq.

The U.N. has estimated that a war in Iraq would result in 500,000 civilian casualties. Now even if we assume (1) that this estimate is high and there will only be 250,000 casualties and 100,000 of those civilians are killed, and (2) that this action prevents an attack by al-Qaida that would have been TEN TIMES deadlier than September 11(which would roughly equal 30,000 U.S. civilian deaths); we still must ask whether American life is that much more valuable than Iraqi life.

So I ask you the following question.

How would you rate the comparable value of American and Iraqi life?

winstonjen

Each human life, to me, is of equal value. Therefore, the rate of saving lives has to be at LEAST 1 life saved to each life lost. The more lives saved to the lives lost, the better. Innocent people are going to die in Iraq, whether through war or through Saddam's oppressive regime.

Loren Pechtel

First, I think it more likely he would use the WMD to keep us off his back and allow him to finish what he started in 1990.

Second, your comparison is invalid. Suppose half a dozen bad guys break into our house. Now, only two of us live here. Am I not permitted to shoot because I would have to kill substantially more people than I am protecting?

Third, got a source for that number? I think it's not quite right. 500,000 total casualties makes sense but most of those would be military. The only way I see 500,000 civilian casualites is if Saddam starts flipping WMD-armed Scuds at Israel and Israel retaliates, or we take out some WMD stuff in Baghdad, or he's flipping nasty enough stuff that we decide we need to nuke the launchers even though they are in Baghdad. I think the latter scenario quite unlikely unless the missiles are targeted at cities instead of our troops. If it's Baghdad or Riyadh Bush probably would use the nuclear option.

winstonjen

I disagree. The ones breaking in are not innocent, and if they were threatening your life, you'd have every right to wound or kill all of them, if that's what it took.

peacenik

If SH was so anxious to use WMD and he's been hiding them all along, never really desposing of them, then why hasn't he used them in 12 years. The truth is that while he is an evil man, he is not irrational. If you don't believe me then consider his history as dictator which I will briefly summarize.

Saddam Hussein assumed the role of dictator in 1979. Then in the early 1980s Hussein embarked on a war against Iran during which he was recieving substantial support from the United States. This U.S. aid and support of Hussein's build-up of Weapons of mass destruction continued throughout the Iran-Iraq conflict, which lasted until 1988, despite the fact that Iraq had committed numerous atrocities.

In 1990, Saddam continued to grow more frustrated with Kuwait, and on July 25, 1990 Saddam Hussein met with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to discuss the possibility of a military attack with Kuwait. Glaspie amazingly stated that the U.S. had a neutral position on any such "Arab- Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She further stated that "[h]e(President Bush) is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq." A week later Iraq invaded Kuwait, and suddenly our foreign policy changed on a dime.

We of course then expelled Iraq from Kuwait and imposed sanctions on Iraq. Since his expulsion from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein has not committed an act of agression against another nation. He has of course continued to oppress his own people and he is allegedly building and hoarding WMD, but so have many other brutal dictators.

History tells us that while Saddam is a brutal, ruthless dictator with little regard for human life, he is not the irrational mad-man that the Bush administration has made him out to be. After all, all of his brutal actions up until 1990 only resulted in American support for his regime, and he invaded Kuwait under the mistaken assumption that the U.S. would not intervene in this action. He has always taken careful and often brutal steps to make sure that his actions do not result in his ouster. It is not currently in his interest to attack any other sovereign nation because he knows that if he committed such an action he would immediately be taken out by the United States WITH the approval of the entire world including his Arab neighbors. The truth is that when viewed dispassionately the historical evidence clearly shows that Saddam is unlikely to attack another sovereign nation at this time because doing so would be against his own interests. In contrast, if we back him into a corner through military action, previous evidence suggests that Hussein would be likely to attack us with WMD since under this scenario Hussein has nothing to lose.

Second, it is your comparison that is invalid, my comparison involves innocent parties on both sides, Iraqi civilians and American civilians(i.e. apples to apples). In contrast, your comparison involves a comparison of innocent parties to guilty parties(i.e. apples to oranges).

Third, yes I do have a source; the U.N. itself has made this estimation. However, I even went so far as to assume that the U.N.'s estimation is grossly exaggerated. The estimation includes not only lives lost by people directly hit by the bombs, but also the lives lost by people after water supplies and vital supplies are bombed causing mass devastation and homelessness.

Here's the link to that U.N. estimation: http://latelinenews.com/ll/english/1241395.shtml

dangin

I didn't take the poll, but speaking in a purely evolutionary/primate way. Our society is the society from which we draw benefit and support. Their society is not. Our society should thus mean more to us than theirs. In fact, going to "war" over resources with another society is not uncommon among primates.

Now, with global implications, the information age, and WMD in mind. The more important question is "Is attacking Iraq good for our society?"

When it is us vs. them, the only answer is us. But, when you are talking about global ramifications of Shrubya's foreign policy it is far more complicated than an us vs. them equation.

That's why I didn't participate in the poll.

peacenik

dangin:

I agree with you that my question assumes things that are not true(i.e. Bush's plan to attack Iraq will make us safer), I was just posing this question as a hypothetical based on the admittedly faulty assumption that attacking Iraq will make us safer.

Michaelson

Come on! "the truth is" that you can't infer the truth from this flimsy information. Perhaps Saddam is rational, and knows that he hasn't stored up the capacity in WMD yet to feel ready to strike any other nations. Maybe Saddam wants to pass on WMD technology to terrorists willing to export them to despised western countries and blow them sky high.

Who knows what has motivated Saddam in the last 12 years? Certainly not you or I.

In terms of playing it safe, though, how can you let "a ruthless, brutal dictator, with little regard for human life" slowly but surely build up the weapons capicity to pose a severe threat to the rest of the world. Not too mention that in the mean time he's going around denying his own people basic human rights.

I'm not saying war's the way to go, or that US intentions going inot Iraq are pure, but by going to war you're talking about simultaneously getting rid of the threat Iraq poses to internatioinal security, and also bringing people basic freedoms and human rights that they have been denied for decades now.

It's not quite as simple as one civilian life to another.

braces_for_impact

This seems a pointless poll to me, merely designed in reality to make a political point. You reasons listed for wanting regime change in Iraq are only part of the various reasons that may exist for such change.

Bifurcation

Strawberry

To make the poll fair, you should have included the reverse options; i.e. how many American deaths is one Iraqi life worth?

IMO, nobody should die.