| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| How much would you pay to win the Iraq war? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 1 2006, 08:46 PM (648 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | Apr 3 2006, 07:38 AM Post #26 |
|
MAMIL
|
Warfare is different, however death is death. If you're only prepared to risk 50,000 people to win the war against terror, presumably you're willing to accept losing that war, or not fighting it, once the casualty list reaches that length. If you are, you're implying that at that point the benefits of winning the war are no longer worth the cost of life entailed. By implication, if the consequences of losing WWII are the same, then the cost-benefit analysis should also be the same. I know that the likely casualties associated with the Iraq war aren't as high as WWII, but this isn't absolutely assured. A big nuke on NY or LA detonated by Iraqi insurgents could conceivably kill more Americans than died in both world wars. Would you really advocate a cut-and-run strategy if that occurred? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 3 2006, 07:46 AM Post #27 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
As explained in my response to Apple earlier, please feel free to use the consequence of failing (or not going to war) as an input to mould your answer to this poll. If you believe that the consequence is so grave that we should fight 'til the last American's blood is shed, you should have the courage to say so. To think that one should go to war without pondering the limit of one's tolerance for sacrifice, or to think that the cost will just work itself out by magic, is simple-minded. If you'de like to enumerate what level of sacrifice should reflect what level of success -- feel free, I'll be reading (and I bet a lot of others will, too). Thank you for your thoughts. |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 3 2006, 07:50 AM Post #28 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
The consequences for failure in Iraq would be catastrophic therefore the price we should be willing to pay should be correspondingly high. To put simple number figures on that like "50,000" dead or "100,000" dead is simple minded and ignores the part of my post you chose not to highlight (or chose to ignore. I''m not sure which). |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 3 2006, 08:01 AM Post #29 |
|
MAMIL
|
I'm with JB on this, hence a null vote from me. You can't put a number on it. In addition the number of casualties are directly related to the type of war it is, which could change. It seems pretty unlikely that it will, and the casualties will therefore remain relatively low. If this changes, that would indicate a change in the type of war being fought, and a subsequent re-assessment of the most effective tactics and/or strategy to be employed. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Apr 3 2006, 09:25 AM Post #30 |
|
John, although I think you already started saying this, my point was this: That 50,000 soldiers in WWII doesn't equal 50,000 today. Simple for the same reason the value of a dollar changes. Just as 50,000 bucks back then isn't the same as 50,000 bucks today. Accordingly, losing 50,000 soldiers today would mean we would have a much bigger battle, with bigger weapons, and bigger attacks...to render the same results as 50,000 soldiers in WWII. |
![]() |
|
| apple | Apr 3 2006, 09:26 AM Post #31 |
|
one of the angels
|
i also could not begin to formulate a figure.. i am not capable |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 5 2006, 05:21 AM Post #32 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Guys, no need to duck the question -- there is an option that allows you to vote "fight 'til the last American." That's pretty much the highest price you can pay for a war. You are also free to write in "infinity." I did not ignore any part of your post, JB. You think it's simple minded to "put a number" on the cost of war, I told you it's the other way around -- it's naïve to not identify the level of sacrifice you're willing to make before going to war. So far, you have been saying that failure in Iraq has "catastrophic" consequences -- yet you have yet to describe what's so "catastrophic" about it. It seems you simply assume that the cost of failure will be "high," but have no idea "how high," hence have no clue on how much you're willing to sacrifice to fight this war. What is your worst case scenario? If your worst case scenario of failure is 100,000 more American deaths due to terrorism over the next 30 years, are you going to sacrifice 1,000,000 American lives to fight that war in Iraq now? If your worst case scenario is the death of half the American population and the enslavement of the other half by radical Mullahs -- would you then rather have the other half die fighting in Iraq or simply accept slavery for survival for the next few generations? For John D'Oh, yes, I agree that the situation needs to be re-assessed from time to time -- but for every re-assessment that involves strategic change, you must also identify the level of sacrifice you're willing to tolerate to pursue that new strategy -- else you find yourself not having the stomach to follow-through on that strategy and have to "cut-and-run" from the execution of it mid-stream. Sure, you can call that another "re-assessment," but it's better to choose a strategy that has a cost level that you can stomach than one that you cannot, don't you think? |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 5 2006, 05:29 AM Post #33 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Ax, It is obvious you are determined to miss my point. I just don't have the time to screw with it right now. Just read what I posted. I really have nothing more to say on the matter. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 5 2006, 05:30 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yeah, but...... you're wrong, and he's right. So we're right back to the fact that your questions are meaningless. One thing I can tell you for certain.... *you* may be willing to give up for "a few generations", but when they hit the Mason Dixon line, that will be as far as they make it..... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 5 2006, 05:42 AM Post #35 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think a better question would be 'How many (or how much money) are we willing to lose before we change tactics?'. The war's on, you can't just walk away from it. You can however change tactics in order to minimise friendly losses and maximise those of the enemy. And no, I'm not talking about carpet-bombing. But there's other options which could be examined, and I'm sure are being. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Apr 5 2006, 05:48 AM Post #36 |
|
Senior Carp
|
That's the all-important insight. Let me put it another way. If I knew for certain that there would come a point where I wouldn't want to expend any more resources (money, lives, etc.), I would pull out now. So specifying a maximum "cost" now implies such a point in the future. On the other hand, at each point in time one can ask if it pays to expend any more resources given knowledge of the present state and expectations for success going forward. I raised the issue about cost in another thread and said I felt we were nowhere near the point where we should decide to pull out. But that's a question that needs to be revisited periodically. |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Apr 5 2006, 05:54 AM Post #37 |
|
Senior Carp
|
We did recently change tactics... finally. And it's paying off. I mentioned it in my post above outlining winning the peace in Iraq. Basically, out tcatics were changed from trying to wipe out the insurgency in their geographical areas of strength (such as the Sunni triangle) to the basic counter-insurgency method of first securing the relatively peaceful areas in Iraq, then spreading out control from there to eventually encompass all of Iraq. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









That's the all-important insight. 
10:31 AM Jul 11