Would your suport of war change if expected american troop casulties was higher?

[Tesserat]

If the deaths among american soldiers were high, something like 20% (well, I think that's high), would you still support a war against Iraq? Is there a point where you'd stop supporting a war?

[Tesserat]

Just bumping my own thread here, because it's something I'm really curious about. It's pretty obvious that when (if) the States goes to war against Saddam (not Iraq, sorry), that they're going to win. And win big, as in anihilate, to whatever level they want. It's not going to be a a contest, more like the american troups have to be careful, not really scared ********, as in vietnam or Korea.

But what if the risks were higher? I've heard some people talk about a moral responsibility to stop Saddam. (sorry, no links that I can find, that part is anctidotal). At what point would the moral responsibility include an unnacceptable amount of risk?

I'm not sure what the hurry is to oust Saddam. Has the Bush administration found evidence that he's about to try something dangerous?

From what I can see, yep, he's been screwing with the UN for 12 years, but the UN in general is getting pissed off at Saddam. Yes, it's hard to enforce the security council resolutions. But I think that Saddam has mostly been contained in Iraq.

Why now. Why Iraq. Is it just the best target of opportunity?

[fishbob]

I think that we expect low casualties. Our military plans for low casualties. If our losses become higher than expected, it is too late to back out.