To our liberals readers out there?

Question

Is there any war that the US has fought in the last 200 years worth the sacrifice? could you please list them and if the ones you list were gage the way the Iraqi war is gage would we have won or lost please state how.

Answer 1

Your question is difficult to follow, and I'm not a liberal, but I'll try to answer it anyway.

There have been wars where the goals are important enough and clear enough to be worth sacrifice. World Wars 1 and 2 are the best examples, where there was a single identifiable enemy, a clear objectively measurable goal, and a known standard of whether that goal was achived or not. Both of those wars dealt with stopping political expansion, and forcing the attacking forces back within their own established borders.

Korea is a little fuzzier, but the goal was still clear. Stop the North Koreans from taking over the entire peninsula and protect South Korea from invasion. Success was measured by whether North Korea was stopped at a pre-defined line, or if not, how much of South Korea was annexed. Again, objectively measurable goals and standards.

The US Civil War speaks for itself in terms of importance.

The problem with the Iraq "war" is that there is no single enemy, and no clear objectives. We're not fighting against anyone. We're just fighting. There is no objective and no finishing line that we can draw that defines whether we succeed or fail, other than what the Iraqis choose to do. So, we cannot accomplish any goal, because we don't have any goals for ourself. We can only wait, and babysit, until the Iraqis make a decision and then we decide if we like that decision or not.

Answer 2

WWI
WWII (Obvious reasons!)
Korean War (We were protecting allies)
Civil War
{Edit}
First Gulf War also....
----------------------------------------------------
As for the Iraq war, we first claimed it to be started because of the crazy dictator. Though, he hadn't really done anything since we last attacked him. WMD's? None. War on terror. Well that's iffy.

THe war on terror makes it sound as if there is a goal that will one day be achieved. As if terrorism will someday stop. Not only that but our war on terror actually is increasing the number of terrorists and decreasing homeland safety (as for sources on that material, search around the internet. There were intelligence reports released not too long ago that stated those things!). In addition, many many reports have verified that Saddam didn't like Osama, so anyone who thinks Saddam was hiding Osama, you're incorrect. Saddam was the only 1 out of the 3 axis of evil who didn't end up having WMD's and the only one who probably, at this point, wouldn't have been giving us as much trouble as the other two.

If you want to find out if the Iraq war is winning or loosing. You have to decide, is it the Iraq war? Or the war on terror? The war on terror will never be won. It's a good IDEA... to stop terrorism. I'm behind the idea of stopping terrorism, you just can't do that through a conventional war. As for the Iraq war, we have failed to do that also. We have failed to make the country any more secure... there are people dead now in that country that wouldn't have been dead before. We took away a dictator who tortures and ended up torturing people we didn't like anyway.

Iraq. It's a lose-lose situation.

Answer 3

The Civil War (ours, not somebody else's)
WWI
WWII
Afghanistan

Any war, basically when an aggressor attacks us and/or threatens our soveriegnty. Wars of convenience, not so much.

Wars definitely not worth it:
1812
Spanish-American
Vietnam
Iraq 2

Wars based on propaganda and/or really bad theories.

I can't say much about Korea or Iraq I. We didn't gain much in either, but we didn't lose very strategic allies, resources, etc. The loss of life in Korea was a lot for a stalemate.

The wars we fought as part of international peace-keeping forces were justified, but tended to the least results.

Answer 4

In recent days, the news has gone on about how the Iraq War has lasted longer then American involvement in World War II. And with this comes the statement that because the war has lasted longer then World War II, there is no way the United States can win. Well if they are going to make some comparisons to World War II, then so am I.
First of, the biggest aspect of anti-war feelings are American troop casualties. Granted, every person killed or wounded is a tragic loss, but here is the perspective. In the three years and eight months in Iraq, there have been over 3,000 U.S. causalities. During the landings at Normandy there were 5,000 U.S. casualties over a period of 24 hours. In the 37-day battle for Iwo Jima, nearly 7,000 marines were killed. In the 76-day struggle for Okinawa, nearly 12,000 U.S. personnel were killed.

In those battles, some companies suffered a casualty rate of 75 percent! And what where those battles for? A foothold in Europe, a volcanic island to serve as an emergency landing spot for over 2,000 B-29's, and another small island somewhere in the Pacific. And what about the Iraqis? In the last month over 3,000 have been killed by bombs and shootings. As Americans we often forget that freedom isn't free, and in retrospect to what has been paid by the ultimate sacrifice, the payment this time around is small.

And what are to think of the Iraqis? Sure, it's not the most glamorous country and I don't plan on visiting anytime soon, but who are we to say that one American life is greater then 30 Iraqis. We get upset about 100 U.S. casualties, while not caring about the 3,000 Iraqis who are being blown apart. Just because this conflict has lasted longer then World War II doesn't mean we can't win. And Just because we have suffered 3,000+ casualties doesn't mean we should pull out. What it does mean is that we should change our tactics, possibly have a serious and strict sit down talk with Iran, but most of all support the troops there. Part of what makes our troops strong is knowing that they have the support of the people. And with these things this world may be just a bit safer in the coming years

Answer 5

OK I'm lost in all the confusion of the invasion in Iraq... Bin La din has been apprehended... yes? oh ya. THAT was the reason. Find out where the gov't air lifted bin la din's relatives out of the US just minutes after the attack on the WTC. and maybe he is with them?

(a few days later)
I want to add ....
Some of the answers here hv been well thought out and well presented. You have done yr research!
Very good answer.
I believe everyone should realize that everyone is in support of the military regardless of their political persuasion. I believe that is the common thread of any of the countries who have military in Iraq. Everyone wants them to be safe, return safe get the proper care and support once they are home.

When ppl seek truth by asking questions it does not mean they are unpatriotic or have no support for the troops. I do not think the troops are being treated properly when they get home. The gov't has broken their contract that each soldier signs when they enlist.

Answer 6

I'm not a liberal, but I feel all the wars we have been (except for Vietnam) were worth fighting in. And even though I feel we should never have fought in the Vietnam war, I still respect the men who did go over there and fight.

Answer 7

Your question doesn't entirely make sense, but I would say that the problem is you are reducing any war to a questino of value of "sacrifice", which is silly. In WWII, for example, we had no choice: we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us. That is a big difference from us invading Iraq over a lie.



And re Brite (above): who am I to say that one American is worth more than 30 Iraquis? I'm an American citizen. One American soldier's life will ALWAYS be more valuable to me than the life of a citizen of another country.

Answer 8

The Civil war Cookie.

Answer 9

Revolutionary war
Civil War
WW1
WW2
The Cold War
The war on poverty (we lost)

Answer 10

Absolutely! Only two wars I can think of that were a waste of money and people. Vietnam and Iraq second.