XavierBreath
New member
Not to go after you Butch, but just using your statement to make a point.
Many people try to calculate the cost of war by the number of lives lost. For something as horrible as war we feel we must use some kind of gauge. Even if we deem the loss of our soldier's lives as a gauge, do we discount the children who ultimately commit suicide because of the loss of a father or mother? Do we discount the loss of women who commit suicide after having their lives go down the toilet after loosing their spouse? What about the parents who supported their children's decision and later commit suicide themselves? What about the returning paraplegic or amputee that takes his own life after 5 years of trying to cope? How can we discount the same losses of the other side?
The true cost of war cannot be measured in lives lost on the battlefield, although that is a gauge that has a definite number (and sometimes can never be quantified.) The true cost of war must be measured in destruction. Destruction of life, land, economy, relationships, and more. War is the epitome of hatred. To survive a war you cannot do body counts. Body counting is ineviatble among the nay sayers, and must not be joined by those who wish to persevere and end the war with a favorable outcome. Counting bodies to show progress in a war is like counting bulletholes in a target to measure accuracy.
To make my point, you cannot gauge what a war is worth unless you consider the true costs. Body counts do not reflect the true cost of war. They do not even come close. Body counts can be used as a smokescreen to bend opinion of nations. That is their real purpose.
Note I never said win this war. Nobody wins a war. Like a gunfight, the ultimate goal is survival. Survival of your country and way of life. This is true in every war. The only way to "win" a war is to never partake in one.
So how does a country survive a war? We did it in WWII. How? We destroyed everything about the country, lives, economy, land, everything, until the other side, either Germany or Japan capitulated before they did the same to us. Japan limited their war to the Pacific. Germany limited their war to Europe, Africa and Asia. They fought limited wars. We fought a World War. We did not try to rebuild the country before the enemy had capitulated. One might argue that there were still Japanese hold-outs on islands in the Pacific. True. They were isolated though, and did not interfere with the rebuilding of Tokyo after the firebombing.
It is my firm belief that we must survive this war with our country and way of life intact. That will be difficult now, because we ceased combat operations prior to capitulation. Even if we resume combat operations, the effect will be diminished. Our laws have been altered because of terrorists, and our economy is hurting. Theses are not as emotional a loss as a loss of life, but in the long term they are losses nonetheless. When you think about it, these are the losses that bring about withdrawal or capitulation, not loss of life. While our economy pushes us closer to withdrawal, we are trying to build Iraq's economy. I am at a loss for words over this.
War is not popular among civilized nations. For a nation to survive a war though, the war must be absolute. It cannot be fought through politics, it must be fought through destruction. It will not be over through treaties, it will only be over by capitulation and conversion, or extermination of one's enemy.