preparing for the "D-day" assault in one day, than we have lost in five years of fighting terrorism in Iraq ??
2006-10-30 15:05:37 · 13 answers · asked by genny_gump 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
1944 Slapton Sands. Yeah, I know about it. Stuff happens. The Media is obsessed with box scores & explosions. Detroit is dangerous. Yet the rest of Michgin is not like that 24/7. Iraqi is the same way. While stuff happens arround Baghdad. The rest of the Nation actually is rather normal. But Watching people going to work or shcool does not make Headline News.
2006-10-30 15:42:05 · answer #1 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe America is doing anything as grandiose as fighting global terrorism in Iraq. It is simply trying to keep the lid on yet another civil war created in a proxy country.
This is not the world at war in 1945. It is the drollness of one presumptuous nation making a mess in another. It will be a slow attrition like the the Soviets faced in Afghanistan (and the Canadians, Aussies & co. face now thanks again to Uncle Sam). It won't be long before the government declares a hollow victory, cuts and runs leaving an ugly vacuum.
2006-10-30 23:54:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm, you really need to get your facts straight. First off, let me say that American lives lost are always a bad thing. Secondly, like a previous answer said "Comparing numbers of dead human beings as an argument for killing more human beings is sick". The exercise in April about a month and a week before D-Day cost the Allied forces approximately 750 soldiers. Here is the link,
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk%5Fnews/story/0%2C3604%2C1202173%2C00.html
These are human beings that gave their life for this country, not talking points for an argument.
2006-10-30 23:38:35 · answer #3 · answered by . 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the number lost in that trainning mission was around 2000 but that is like comparing apples to horse turds. We were fighting for our very lives in WWII. In this war, we are fighting for GWB and big business and the money they are making in this war for the sake of oil.
2006-10-30 23:10:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Look at the Civil War. Losing a couple thousand is nothing compared to other wars. But our news and technology is so much more advanced, that now we know every little detail as soon as it happens.
2006-10-30 23:09:29 · answer #5 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Does that excuse the loss of thousands in iraq? Are you implying that it is okay to loose more in Iraq because we lost more americans in the 'D-day" ? if that so , it shows that you have no value towards human lives. Please learn to value any human life as much as you value yours.
2006-10-30 23:30:48 · answer #6 · answered by Astarte 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
pgrama...
As far as I know we are in Iraq fighting for this countries protection, not for Bush. Try to come out from under the rock...sunshines really nice.
2006-10-30 23:13:39 · answer #7 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Um, OK. What's your point? That it's OK to lose that many people, or that the D-Day training was badly done?
2006-10-30 23:07:54 · answer #8 · answered by JerH1 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Does that mean you think we shouldn't have worried about those 3000 folks on Sept. 11th either. 3000 isn't so many, right?
2006-10-30 23:11:37 · answer #9 · answered by Steve 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i think you meant to say we lost more Americans in a single training mission preparing for "D_day" assault in one day, than we have lost (2812 American soldiers dead and rising) in five years of fighting WITHOUT A REASON IN IRAQ.
get something straight .......... no wmd ......... no relations to al qaeda ........... nothing to do with 911 ........... all admitted by the moron himself ................ 2812 Americans soldiers ........ 100000 civilians died for NOTHING
2006-10-30 23:14:08 · answer #10 · answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋