2007-01-12 16:32:11 · 11 answers · asked by peace 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes. While no one - from the president on down to the highly motivated, professional troops who are in those countries right now - thinks that dead Soldiers are a good thing, they all realize that being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice is the price of freedom and security.
If you don't think that our security is at stake, tell that to the families from 9-11. Those countries are the focal points for radical Islamists who hate the US and would love to cause lots more 9-11s. If the US does not win the war there - and face it, winning may mean lives lost - then we're going to lose a lot more civilian lives back here at home.
It is a mistake to judge the cost of war versus human lives. Again, the loss of a young life is a terrible thing. But it's even more terrible for a whole country to live under tyranny and oppression. Let's ask your question a few other ways:
Was the Union and the end of slavery worth the lives of US and Confederate troops? 3,000 have died in Iraq; over 190,000 died during the civil war.
Was the freedom of Europe from Nazism worth the lives of US troops? 3,000 have died in Iraq, over 290,000 died in WW II.
Was our freedom from England worth the lives of US troops? Over 4,000 died for that freedom. Was it worth it? Come on now - is England really that bad a country? We could have saved 4,000 lives by just being English, instead of American!
If you are not willing to stand up and fight, to put your life on the line, then prepare to learn Arabic, to wear a veil if you're a woman, to give up on American culture, movies, music, media. The radical Islamists in those countries have nothing less that that as their goal. Only by establishing peaceful, liberal, tolerant states in that region, states that won't stand for terror tactics, can we hope to end the threat these radicals have created.
The loss of U.S. troops is a horrible, horrible thing. The alternative is even worse.
2007-01-19 06:18:09 · answer #1 · answered by dougdell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Iraq no because we can't win in a guerrilla war through cities and difficult landscapes.
Afghanistan - we weren't to fight there in the first place. We went to dig out Ben and his cronies.
Somalia - There are just too many sides to fight. Which insurgents are the best for Somalia??? This is the heaviest armed country (per ca pita) in the world some factions even have tanks.
2007-01-20 18:28:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somalia is important because of geography. Afghanistan got what they asked for and now we need to stabilize the place so it doesn't go back to where it was. The status quo in Iraq wasn't working and I have yet to find one person offer up a reasonable alternative.
2007-01-13 13:02:31 · answer #3 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets go back a few more years, did Europe. Germany nor Italy ever attacked the US. Tens of thousands of US troops died defending England, France, Poland, and the like.
The US did what was right. It may be hard to swallow but helping the rest of the world is the responsibility of the superpowers. By the way, the US is the last Superpower, thanks to Pres. Reagan. They eliminated the Russian threat that had hung over the world for over 40 years. It wreaked our economy, but the price was worth it to have a safer world.
2007-01-13 00:46:14 · answer #4 · answered by e.sillery 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the wars of yesteryear wear very clearcut and easily defined, nobody argues anymore that we needed to defeat the kaiser, hitler, japan, or the chinese in korea. Unfortunately, starting in Vietnam, wars became less well defined and open to outside criticism. Desert Storm was clearly required with its clear and well defined objectives and sides. Since then, the sides are less clear and the goals of the conflicts are increasing vague. The troops killed are regretable and our leaders should try to clearly define any and all goals before committing american soldiers to combat.
2007-01-13 00:45:32 · answer #5 · answered by togetheradecade 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. We are allowing big business to dictate our wars. Our President and Vice President started these wars to obtain a foot in the door in these lands. These people are not stupid and will not buy our society, in time they will overthrow any puppet government and return to what is Holy and Good in their customs and beliefs, they will kick out oil and security companies like Halburton and even stop sales of crude oil to the USA choosing to deal with China and Russia instead.
2007-01-19 07:35:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but we aren't asking our troops to fight for those countries. They are just fighting in those countries. Those who are our enemies are defined by ideology, not geography. Our parents/grandparents could go after Tojo in Japan, or Hitler in Germany, but we don't have a country to attack now. The enemy are hidden among the population all over, and one must root them out when and where possible.
2007-01-13 01:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. We have shown that we are willing to stand up to the evil in the world. Very few other countries can make that claim. I'm proud of the fact that the UK and AU are among those who stand up with us and I couldn't ask for any better soldiers on my 6.
2007-01-13 01:28:25 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Somalia, absolutely because they need the most help believe it or not and they deserve it cause of how long their country has had unrest.
2007-01-13 00:36:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we truly have no business over there, the excuse used is getting to be a bit old hat, we fight there to keep from fighting them over here, how stupid a remark is that, We face nothing new the Jews have faced terrorism for years and they are still strong and it is over there in their country a lot more than here
2007-01-13 00:42:17 · answer #10 · answered by billc4u 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋