English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Can someone explain to the families of those soldiers? Please don't say something stupid like "its for democracy". Putin and the whole world laughed at Bush when he said that during G8 (literally laughed).

On average 4 to 5 soldiers will die on a daily basis. This is the price of what exactly?

2006-07-22 22:47:16 · 15 answers · asked by Mas S 2 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

It's strange, it seems the guys above didn't see the part of your question that said "NO STUPID ANSWERS". Oh well!

I couldn't help it to comment on what they have to say:
WMD: hahahaha...lol...r u for real? They r in the lost city?
WW2 guy: It was 13 million deaths only in the movie u watched? We r not discussing movie trivia here, ok?
FYI: Since the American invasion on Iraq more people got killed, raped and imprisoned in those 3 years than in all Saddam's history!
The guy who has been there: How was it? Did u try the Iraqi 14 year old girls? come on man...don't be shy!
War on terror?: Terrorism is at record high. Well done!

As for your question, they DIED FOR NOTHING!!!!
The war has two reasons:
1) Oil
2) Protect Israeli well being

2006-07-22 23:15:59 · answer #1 · answered by Sam A 1 · 3 3

The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged.

58,226 American soldiers also died in the war or are missing in action.

Australia lost almost 500 of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam and New Zealand lost 38 soldiers.

Can you explain to the millions of families of those who died in Vietnam - US, Anzacs, Vietnamese? There were no Viet cong terrorists blowing up people in New York; neither did they seek to acquire nukes.

Families of all soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan aren't exactly thrilled to see their loved ones go to war in a foreign land. They do because it is their duty.

Putin and the whole world laugh because the US President is not as eloquent as Churchill - never mind. Years from now when a Clinton-type leads America to world isolation, I'd like to see the faces of the Putins of the world facing the extremist Islamists countries. I bet they will yearn for the bad old days of George W Bush. I will not be around. I hope you will be.

2006-07-23 06:57:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To answer your first question, the soldiers who died and were wounded did so because they were following the orders of their superior officers. That is what they are trained to do, and they discharged their duty in doing so.

To answer your second question, their families will not need the above explaining to them - they will have understood that already.

To answer your third and final question, the death and injury of soldiers is the price of sending them into battle.

Of course, you have a whole political agenda in your question but, seeing as you haven't asked your subtext question directly, it is pretty difficult to answer it.

It may be that American soldiers are in Iraq in a genuine effort to break the machinery of international terrorism in the aftermath of recent atrocities. It may be that they are there in an attempt to stabilise the region and to secure America's interests there. It may be that they are there for political reasons, or to pursue an agenda that the world is not being told about.

Armies follow orders, they don't question the political motive of those orders. What is certain is that they are there because the politicians with executive power, given to them by the mandate of American voters, wanted them there. If that is something with which American voters are not comfortable, then they have a democratic process that they can pursue in order to effect change.

I hope that helps to address the questions you did ask, and the ones you didn't.

2006-07-23 06:06:08 · answer #3 · answered by Charles K 2 · 0 0

The reason was, and is, to be sure that Saddam's WMD threat was neutralized. We know that he had them: he used them. A few were found in arsenals after the invasion, but fewer than 300 of more than 10,000 arsenals have actually been inspected. We now know that the bulk of the WMD material -- several thousand tons of stuff -- was shipped off to Syria in June 2002.

The threat of nuclear weapons is real. To build a Hiroshima-type bomb requires less than 30 pounds of U-235, and if you have the fuel, building one is trivial. (I designed one when I was in seventh grade.) Iraq was, and Iran and North Korea are working on enrichment processes. A nuclear bomb can fit in a crate the size of an office desk, and if detonated from an upper floor of the Empire State Building, would flatten Manhattan from the Battery to the top of Central Park. As for getting one into the country, read Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears.

2006-07-23 05:59:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

For IsraelThe Israeli government prayed for the attack on Iraq, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo-Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahuwww.nowarforisrael.com/

2006-07-23 05:57:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because the governmet went in there and half *** on the job because if u building a nation u canot go in there with 150,000 troops and expect it to go smoothly there is in article on nation building u can reat about www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/nation1.html
well rand point of view makes sense because we we were more commited to the war like went in there with half a millon troops we would be able to control the situation better we would have enough troops for securtiy and and be able to control the insurgency i mean history shows the more troops u commit to a situation the better the out come look at japn kora germany so let see the less commited the government is the more soilders lose their life.

2006-07-23 06:50:10 · answer #6 · answered by a_j2002 2 · 0 0

So would you have Saddam continue to use chemical Weapons on his own people all and after hes done with his country maybe he could come and visit yours, HMMM can you say Hitler, he almost ruled the world, And before you get any more bright ideas I HAVE BEEN THERE!!!!!!!!! Have you? If we didn't put an end to this now then I hope you enjoy converting to whatever the terrorist tell you.

2006-07-23 05:56:23 · answer #7 · answered by wicked jester 4 · 0 0

There are two main factors causing this:
1. John Kerry voted against every single defense bill that would have provided better weapons systems to our troops.
2. Whining liberals insist upon fairy tale military strategies where no "civilians" get hurt.
3. Terrorists killed our soldiers.

2006-07-23 05:59:46 · answer #8 · answered by Sleepy Mike 4 · 0 0

ASK GEORGE BUSH AND CONGRESS. Maybe ask why Congress won't send their sons to Iraq either! 4-5 soldiers a day is the going price for Oil nowadays...

2006-07-23 05:53:17 · answer #9 · answered by Equinox 6 · 0 0

Of freedom.....millions have died through history so you may ask such stupid questions....and thanks to technology, it sir only 2500 dead.......in less than 5 years....over 13,000,000 million died in W W II.....and the whole world didn't laugh....only those that do not believe in it.....and lastly....I see you think it is better to have a dictator in power....that killed millions, allowed raping of the women , and tried to commit genocide.....it is good to see a good liberal on here trying make the world safer for all of us

2006-07-23 06:01:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers