How many Iraqi deaths must occur before Operation Iraqi Liberation is a failure?

We have a long way to go to catch the failure of Saddam's regime.

 

Exactly 67.34.

 

I think a lot depends on the specifics of the fighting. If a few hardcore Iraqis are coercing the civilians to stay and fight by murdering their families, then I think the deaths could go quite high because it will be the final death throes of an evil regime. However, I think the number could be as low as 10's of thousands if reporters show US troops discarding the rules of war or show a couple of instances of US troops going crazy on civilians (which I hope and pray won't happen, and believe it will not occur). Basically it depends on the troops and officers sticking to the liberation plan and not fighting civilians.

 

At the point that we kill a lot more than Saddam is planning to murder.

 

glynch, is it your personal desire to have this war labeled as a failure? Do you actually want to see our troops *fail* in their mission? Do you want Iraq to win? Your propaganda overwhelmingly points in that direction. Your blatant refusal to support American troops is evident. Your utter contempt for the Commander In Chief of our armed forces is evident. The time for debate ended when the first soldier stepped foot into Iraq. The Bush Administration has repeatedly stated that they will not rest until Saddam is out of power and the Iraqi people have been liberated. There is *no* turning back. No amount of lunatic fringe extremists laying down in the middle of Fifth Avenue or the Embarcadero will change that. Americans will not quit or give up, as you would like to see them do. They are above that.

 

glynch,

How well must the war go for you to consider it a success?

or would you ever?

 

As many as it takes.

DD

 

Don't know the answer to the original question, but to me there is only one Iraqi death that must occur before Operation Iraqi Liberation is deemed a success, and that is the death of one Iraqi named Saddam Hussein.

If there are thousands of Iraqi deaths over the next month or so, yet Saddam is not killed, or even found, I do believe that the opinion of the American public will turn against this war.

 

Whether one was against the war or for the war beforehand - pulling out is not an option at this point. The US have to go through and win this war now - rather sooner than later. The faster it is over, the less suffering and civilian casualties there should be. Many things will have to be analyzed after the war - but I believe that now is the time to support the allied troops fighting in Iraq. It just does not seem like a viable option - and I think it shouldn't even be for peace activists - to consider pulling out and letting Saddam "win" this conflict. The damage of that happening would be enormous. After the war will be the time when one will have to analyze decisions made by the parties involved and when one can discuss guilt and responsibility. I believe this will be necessary. But now is not the time. In my opinion, all Nato allies should at least not openly take a position that could be misconstrued as siding with Iraq's current government at this time.

 

I have to agree with this.....although I think his capture might be as good or better than his death.

 

You bet...his capture would be the ultimate thing to go for. I just believe that Saddam would put a bullet in his own head before he allowed himself to be captured.

 

I don't know, but we'd better find a way to take out Uday.

 

Glynch,

You are living in La La land.

I appreciate your consistency.

Too bad most of the people in this republic don't agree with you.

DD

 

Sure, like the violent peace protestors we saw on the TV yesterday, lol.

First, peace activism very well may have INCREASED deaths of Vietnamese and Americans. Ho said himself post-war that he considered quitting claims on the South but was sure the 'peace movement' would eventually sap American will to continue the fight. So it is entirely possible many less would have died but for the 'anti-war' opposition. Second, historians who conclude the Vietnam War was unnecessary mostly point to the flaws in the domino theory (N Vietnamese action being nationalistic in origin, not marxist expansionism). That is fundamentally different from the perceived security risk of a nuclear armed Iraq, and is fundamentally different from the removal of a genocidal regime. Trying to draw a parallel between the two in a sweeping stroke is mass mischaracterization.

Sure, let's send a real loud message to all potential aggressors out there that we have NO political will at all. Hey, we could even re-live the 70s! Disco's back!