Have the dead died in vain?

[mopaul]

so many dead, 3,000 in 9-11, estimates of 30,000 or more dead in iraq and afghanistan, have we saited our revenge lust yet?

have the innocents died in vain? have the soldiers, for good or bad, died in vain? the whole war was based on cheap lies, not even good lies, so, was all the death and carnage and blasted landscape worth it? or was it all for naught, all in vain?

hell, i don't know, i'm just asking with a scream.

[demnan]

1. Yes

[bryant69]

2. A Poem

next to of course god america i

"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

e. e. cummings

For some reason your post made me think of this poem.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[still_one]

3. Yes, at least the ones in Iraq, and probably the ones in

Afghanistan because of the incompentence of the administration to remove resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Because of what this administration did, by shifting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, both are in shambles...

I cannot believe that 50% of the idiots still would like to re-elect him for his failure...

I will add one more thing, the 60000 plus we lost in Viet Nam was also in vain. We have learned NOTHING from that experience...

5 years from now no one will remember or care who died expect immediate family members...

[Justitia]

4. They have, for no fault of their own

Isn't it a sad conclusion? But true, and we must not shy away from that truth, lest it happen again.

The soldiers that have died, did so in the service of their country, so their sacrifice is an honorable one, regardless of the speciousness of the mission.

I will not ever hesitate to say that they died in vain, to point out that their gov't abused and discarded them, as though they were "disposable".

When we become too comfortable with the fate our gov't assigned them by glossing over the murderous insult dealt to them, we make it easier to happen to our citizens the next time.

These illegitimate wars are happening too close together for my taste (Vietnam, Iraq).

[sui generis]

5. wars are fought

between old men by their children.

The loss of life is utterly tragic, and no it was not "worth it" by any stretch. What makes it even more painful is that the soldiers who went there willing to give their lives to duty and country really do believe in the ideals of America and are willing to sacrifice for it, but they have been cynically, crassly manipulated and used by our government to further their oil policy.

George Bush has rivers of blood on his hands, and at current count is guilty of causing more human death than Saddam Hussein.

[htuttle]

7. Nearly all the dead of all the wars in history...

...died in vain.

[mmm]

6. Worse than that, they died in the course of evil

No one was saved, no honor upheld,
no greater good was served in any way.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Of course, because WAR IS A RACKET

Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps
Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914,and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
Distinguished service medal, 1919
Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

More: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[DulceDecorum]

9. I really don't know what to say

to the relatives of those killed in Abu Graib.

[Skarbrowe]

10. instinct?

On a rerun on OZ last night, one of the characters says, (paraphrasing) " Studies have found that man's instinct to kill is almost or as strong as his instinct to procreate."

I wonder if that is true.

To answer the question of the post, yes, I do believe that the soldiers in Iraq have died in vain. The soldiers in Afghanistan could have avoided this fate, but as someone said, they were not given full military support and sadly, the incidents of friendly fire have been extremely high.

I have faced the fact that mankind will always fight and kill each other. My only hope is that we can keep it to a minimum.

But,I don't think that will happen.

Skarbrowe

[Roaming]

11. Maybe it's just too early to tell; the end result will make the statement

in history, I think. Where will we be in five, ten years? Will Afghanistan and Iraq be better off? Will terrorism have declined, at least al Quaeda. Maybe it's just too soon to tell.

[goodhue]

12. yes n/t

[IrateCitizen]

13. I'm going to say no, but not for the obvious reasons

I deplore the loss of life that has taken place, but I would not say that it has been in vain. Rather, the deaths that have occurred have hastened the decline of America as a hyperpower, and broken apart its lazy attempts at establishing a global empire. When this first point comes to fruition, then it can result in the natural process of modernization that is currently taking place within much of the Middle East.

The United States is actually a pretty weak country right now. If we were truly strong, we wouldn't feel the need to exercise military might against some of the weakest nations on earth. We are dependent on the rest of the world economically, at the same time that the rest of the world is discovering that they aren't quite so dependent on us anymore. Our foreign policy -- even the current attempts at establishing some kind of empire -- has become essentially a "path of least resistance" by lazy leaders unwilling to take on any policies involving hard work.

The rest of the world does not want war and instability -- the US is the only nation that does. Why? Because it benefits us, it allows us to maintain the illusion of our status as the "indespensible nation". But the end is coming soon, and quickening with every unfortunate death in this current "crusade".

Those deaths are unfortunate, but they are not in vain, when you consider the bigger picture of the entire world.