Talk:We rushed to war

From TruthAboutIraq

Although I think this needs to be said, I'm not sure what else to do with this page. Anybody got any ideas? Dean Esmay 15:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Yup, I got an idea. Construct a timeline (in a format similar to this) showing every last insane step along the way. - Chris 15:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that would be good; but I also think a lot of Iraq lies are only lies when seen in perspective. It is truth to say that around 3,500 troops have died, and that's a great sacrifice. The falsehood comes in when that is then used to argue "So this war is a disaster and a failure." That's false because the number of troop deaths is not a measure of success; and if it were, then we lost WWII, and WWI, and the Revolution, and the Civil War (both sides!), because we lost more people both absolutely and relatively in those conflicts. It's legitimate to argue whether those 3,500 deaths accomplished vital goals that were worth the cost; but it's illegitimate to argue that the deaths themselves are proof of failure. If you look at 3,500 lives sacrificed for 25,000,000 people liberated, then all of a sudden this is measurably an incredible success.

In similar fashion, I would like to see that timeline contrasted with how long we spent deliberating over other conflicts. Even though an honest assessment might lend weight to the "rush to war" camp, I would like to see that contrast. How might it lend weight? Well, I would mark the start of the debate over whether to enter WWII a lot earlier than Dec. 7, 1941. I'm not sure where the start should be, but the debate started long before the attack.

WWI would probably be the same. I'm not sure on Korea. Vietnam was an odd case, because we sorta did rush to war there, sending in "advisers" long before there was formal conflict.

I'm not at all sure, but I suspect a fair historical perspective will show that a year is about the norm for us to toss around and debate before making up our minds. I can't in any way call a year a "rush"; but I'm not sure it counts as protracted debate, either.

I would also like to see the timeline reference contemporary news reports about how Saddam was playing games with the inspectors, moving troops and supplies, and otherwise playing games that would've been denied him in a true rush to war.

I know, I know: do it yourself, Martin. But man, I'm still too busy at work! I'm hoping that if I through my ideas out there, Chris and Ken and Hokie will get inspired and run with them. I haven't mentioned it enough, but you guys are doing a phenomenal job!--Martin L. Shoemaker 00:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All good ideas, Martin. But I only have so many hours in the day. :-) I've started the timeline, at least, by pinching entries from Wikipedia and removing everything not related to Iraq, or at least GWOT. It's a start. - Chris 01:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)