Why is it that many believe we are not being lied to during the Iraqi conflict?( yes I support our troops and no ,I am not a moron)Things like the number of casualties and such.
2006-11-01 14:05:21 · 7 answers · asked by Paul I 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
no lies in Vietnam?Really.......how about the "secret "war in Laos?
2006-11-01 14:35:11 · update #1
Nobody likes to think that "their guy" (Bush), the guy they voted for can do anything wrong especially when it comes to the war on terror and because most Americans don't have a clue about the Middle East or Iraqi politics it's very easy for them to understand Bush's very basic comments "stay the course, cut & run, fight'em over their not here", etc...) and after 9/11 everybody wants revenge and since Muslims caused 9/11 (still amazes me that Americans don't realize that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia) Muslims must pay whether they have WMDs or terrorists in their country or not. War is not about the truth it's about winning and that's it. There are no rules (Bush thru the Geneva convention out the door) just life and death and people will do anything they can to survive even if it means lying and this includes Bush.
2006-11-01 14:45:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that we were lied about during the Vite Nam war, was that victory was just around the corner. Any of our enemies with any sense, knows that we now go to the source. In South Vite Nam, both Johnson and Nixon were told that we had enough troops, when we needed more. If we would have had a full scale invasion of North Vite Nam, there would have been no more war in the South Vite Nam. But we did not. We were trying to fight a 'limited war'. In other words, we had a policy of when you see a glowing ember, you stomp it out immediately before it spreads. Unfortunately, this did not work in Vite Nam like it did in the Dominican Republic. It was still part of the Reagan doctrine for Grenada and El Salvadore.
2006-11-01 22:21:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
2,900 people killed in 3 1/2 years sounds like a lot, till there are other numbers to compare it too. If that number is compared to U.S. civilian males killed, per 100,000, between the the ages of 20-44 in 3 1/2 years, that 2,900 is low. That number is still less than the 3,000 British kids that drown each year and 1/30th those that die annually from medical mistakes. 82,000 people lose a foot or leg to diabetes annually(http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/amputation_research060224.htm). That's a far cry from the less than 200 that had an amputation as a result of the war.
The Vietnam War was trumped up with unbalanced numbers too. More people were dieing each year from car accidents each year than the U.S. military death rate in the whole conflict.
2006-11-01 22:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I THINK THE NUMBERS POSTED TODAY IN IRAQ ARE ACCURATE, UNLIKE VIET NAM. ALTHOUGH THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO BE FRAUDULENT. HOW MUCH MONEY DID THE OIL RICH, BUSH FAMILY RAKE IN? THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION. OH WELL, GOD HAS A WAY OF BALANCING THE SCALES. WHAT A DAY THAT WILL BE. THERE'LL BE NO SKULL AND BONES MEMBERS THERE.
GOD BLESS
2006-11-01 22:12:20 · answer #4 · answered by thewindowman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hahaha! Someone's convoluted logic on here is surely going to promt them to say that since it happened before that makes it A OK!
2006-11-01 22:07:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The press is certainly lying to us.
They omit anything which validates our actions and amplify everything that makes us look bad.
2006-11-01 22:08:33 · answer #6 · answered by CHEVICK_1776 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the whole blame war is a lie.
2006-11-01 22:07:29 · answer #7 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋