Wednesday, October 26, 2005


There have been more than 2,000 military deaths in Iraq . . . so far.

Is that newsworthy?


If ensuring a democratic Iraq and (potentially) a much safer mid east costs 20,000 US lives today (rather than 200,000 "tomorrow"), it still makes sense.

It may sound carelessly cruel and unsympathetic to the personal tragedy of 2,000 lost lives, but it has been worth the price, but only if we stay the course.

If we bolt from Iraq and it degenerates into a latter-day Beirut, it will have been a tragic waste.


At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You look at it prospectively. You can also look at it historically. When in the past has any other conflict accomplished so much with such a small numerical cost in lives?

Compare that number to the casulties of the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, or maybe you just want to compare it to the number of lives lost on 9/11.


At 11:20 AM, Blogger Steve said...

JJ -- in that context, given the regional impact of the ouster of Saddam and the rounding up of entire layers of terrorist cells, it has been a bargain.

Bargain -- that may appear to be a callous word when applied to the loss of young lives, but those who argue it is 2,000 too many will never know how many thousands have been saved.

At 12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point, exactly.


At 3:53 AM, Anonymous jason said...

once again your a retarded cocksucker


Post a Comment

<< Home