[Mazer]

Originally Posted by toy boy

Not really up to me to answer but I am bored

As far as I'm concerned, if you've got a keyboard and something to say, say it.

Now, I don't believe any one reason justifies war, it takes a combination of things to come to that decision. I listed a few in a previous post. Iraq's former state of repression by itself was not the only reason to invade, nor was it the best reason. Whether invading a country that hasn't harassed its neighbors for a little while is illegal under international law is something I don't really know. I do know the only international law that the United States is obligated to obey is international treaty, the second highest law of our land as mandated by our highest law, the Constitution.

I believe people in London and Madrid beg to differ.

Well the citizins of Madrid might, but Londoners are tough bastards, and they proved it after they were attacked. Tragic as it was, they weren't going to let the terrorists rule their fears. The Spaniards on the other hand played right into thier attacker's hands by electing an anti-war prime minister. The terrorists won in Spain and they lost in England, and the important difference wasn't the body count.

1. If the armed forces didn’t dissolve the entire police and armed forces in Iraq in the first place there might be some law and order right now.
2. Meaning??? What exactly???
3. A man tried to cross a river once that statistically was only 2 feet deep on average. Guess what ... he drowned! Statistically I can proof about the most idiotic theory I can shove out of my mouth.

Had those police remained in place then here would be order, just as there was before, but very little law. I'm willing to bet that Iraqis prefer martial law American style to their former government.

theknife claimed that the war was a military failure. By citing the number of dead civilians compared to past wars I was giving one example of how our invasion was a military success.

You can try to prove anything you want to with statistics, but these statistics really are relevant. When the news reports the troop body count they should also report the percent of the total number of troops. In both world wars the mortality rate of American soldiers was greater than 2%, but in this war it is less than .2%. Interpret these stats any way you like, I choose to believe that soldiers in Iraq are fairly safe.

It is true that American soldiers haven't had to deal with a suicidal insurgency in past wars. They're generally not prepared for the special situations Iraq presents with its road-side bombs, its hidden arms cache, its leaky borders, etc. Should we give up just because this kind of conflict is unprecidented? I look to the progression of warfare over the past two centuries as an example of how resiliant and adaptive American forces tend to be. When rifles became accurate, semi-automatic, and easy to reload, our army stopped digging trenches and charging in straight lines to make themselves easy targets. When Japanese soldiers and civilians proved they weren't afraid to die, we nuked them to make their deaths pointless. There is as yet some military innovation to be discovered that will bring a quick end to American deaths in Iraq. Until that comes to pass we're trying diplomacy, and hopefully by building up the people themselves we'll make our military tactics obsolete.