J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Why is it OK for those many Americans to die in the name of having fun,
> but not OK for a much smaller number to die in the course of trying to
> help somebody?

Calling it help is a misnomer when they don't want to be helped.

It doesn't matter if they want help or not, though. Their country was
used as a launching point for an act of war and they need to ensure that
does not happen again. To the extent they work towards that end they
get to not get helped. To the extent they fight the troops sent there
any objections to occupation are irrelevant.

However it's done a repeat attack will be prevented. As usual most
folks just want jobs to work so they can raise their families and so
most folks get screwed by the ones who really want to fight. It's not
about what most folks want unfortunately. It's about what the worst of
folks on all sides actually do.

With Iraq what happened is a dictatorship was taken away then
infrastructure was rebuilt. As the rebuild happened peace grew to more
and more regions of the country. It's gotten to the point where few
regions are problematic any more and so the number of foreign troops
stationed there has been steadily dropping. Iraq was one of the places
where agriculture and metalsmithing were invented so they have a
tradition of civilization longer than almost any other place on Earth.
Afghanistan has long been comparatively wild and rugged. There the word
may be "build" rather than "rebuild" and it could take a very long time
before they understand the whole principle that being at peace is how to
get the troops to leave. But it doesn't matter if they want the troops
to leave or not. However it's done a repeat attack will be prevented
and what the locals want doesn't factor into that. It's sad but that's
the way it goes.