http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
With over 407,000 military deaths, we just should of cut and run.
Or better yet, try talking to our enemies and see if we can "work it out"
Isn't that the Democratic "foreign affairs" policy?
2006-10-27 12:46:11 · 19 answers · asked by John 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Excellent analogy..........you could have included Viet Nam as an actual example of the "cut and run" strategy - and the devastating results.
2006-10-27 13:15:29 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yep, that's the policy for about 5% of them. Barely anybody wants to leave, I've always said a timetable.. Looks like the pres is growing a brain and understanding that his "til the job is done" plan isn't working. I just figure, if a year from now when the deadline is near and it didn't work, the scrap it and stay.. I don't see what the problem is with that.
2006-10-27 19:59:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Back then it was the Republicans foreign affairs policy. The democrats wanted to stay and WWII was a good cause, everybody supported it. You don't see many people supporting the Iraq war. You are the same guy that believes Roosevelt could've been Republican, you make me laugh.
2006-10-27 19:50:58 · answer #3 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Reason democrats didnt cry cut and run in WW2 is beause the TV didnt have a big influence on things, all they heard about the war came from the radio. The truth is the democrats running the news stations make the war worse then it is and thats why people think we should cut and run and you notice how they never mention anything good from the war, like Iraq children going to school and getting toothbrushes for the first time?
2006-10-27 19:50:11 · answer #4 · answered by xcef2005 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
that is the most ignorant rant disguised as a question i've seen in a while...believe me, you DON'T want to be comparing this mess with WWII...for starters, if the bush administration been in charge back then, after pearl harbor they would have attacked switzerland or bolivia or some other weak country that had nothing to do with it...and STILL would have botched the job...and if you really want to play the 'party in power' game...may i remind you that it took democratic leadership (fdr and truman) to lead us to victory? the democratic plan is to take on whoever we NEED to take on, no matter how powerful they may be, and WIN...the republican plan seems to be to attack 'pipsqueakistan' and lose...
2006-10-27 20:59:56 · answer #5 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No just like the Civil War (many many deaths) But sometimes war is necessary Look at how many failed talks and UN resolutions worked with Saddam--O, zero, zilch,
2006-10-27 19:50:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even the Republicans are using "cut and run" anymore. You need to get your Talking Points list updated.
And speaking of WWII, next month we will have spent as much time in combat operations in Iraq as we did for WWII. Just a little FYI.
2006-10-27 19:50:24 · answer #7 · answered by spire2000 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes they should have CUT the heads of the killer japs and Germs and Run after the heads of the Communists. We may not be facing this triangle.
2006-10-27 20:42:09 · answer #8 · answered by antonioavilakiss 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes we should of invited Hitler to America for dinner in the White House. Make a pact and lend him some state of the art ovens. EXTRA CRISPY PLEASE!
LMAO
2006-10-27 19:51:39 · answer #9 · answered by Jethro 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
John, the only thing you need to do is to remove your blinders and see the difference between the war of necessity (WWII) and the Bush vendetta war of choice (Iraq/Afghanistan).
The rest, is all words of neocon hot air!
2006-10-27 19:56:14 · answer #10 · answered by Nikolas S 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋