or does he not want to be interupted while knocking down yuletide hotbuttered rums
2006-12-13 14:14:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
thank you.......Viet Nam all over again, and BTW just EXACTLY where are the weapons of mass destruction??
Isn't that why we went over there in the first place?? And don't any of you jump on the 9-11 band wagon.....the guy responsible (and most of his crew) is still at large. Why is no one holding Bush accountable for finding Bin Laden and bringing him to justice?
Get out of Iraq!
Katt Williams summed it up pretty good, watch his show on HBO and tell me what the Iraqi uniform looks like....don't worry, I'll wait. What does an "insurgent" look like??? Reinstate the draft, draft Bush's daughters( after they get out of drug re-hab) and see how fast the war will be over.
2006-12-13 14:25:37 · answer #1 · answered by diamondhawk1 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
we lost more people in one battle in WWII than in the entire war, and as mentioned the difference is that the people and the media supported the US, And if they did not, the media would have been shut down.
And the difference is that people supported its nation to win a war, and not work by silly rules that don't let you win wars.
You want to win, pull out all of the media, let the army tell you what is really happening, since that is the troops main complaint, the real truth is not being told.
And let us go in and level and destroy and make them give up, then you win a war.
But you don't count dead in a war, you count winning, and then honor and greive for the dead.
All presidents go on with thier routines during war time.
2006-12-13 22:54:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is no hurry even if that 3,000 troops turns in 30,000 troops. In spite of his false sense of empathy that he projects in front of our cameras with regards to the troops, the truth is he and his political minions are profiteers that see the troops as nothing more than faceless pawns that can be expended without hesitation in order to achieve their financial and geopolitical goals.
I find it odd that FR_Chuck is willing to trivialize the death of 3,000 troops by stating that it pales in comparison to the causality rate of one battle in WWII. So what? What is acceptable loss of life to him? Judging by his avatar, FR_Chuck is a minister of some sort. He should find the loss of even one life, for a misguided cause, to be one too many. It’s this exact mentality, of looking at troops as numbers on a ledger sheet that makes the Republicans such a despicable lot. Each and every life is precious, and it is a travesty to lose even one soul for a cause not worth dying for.
2006-12-14 14:32:24 · answer #3 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I mourn the death any young man or woman, American G.I. or Taliban, I feel that I wish we could have stopped at 3000 in Vietnam, over 30 years ago. If so I would have a brother, some neices and nephews.
2006-12-13 23:05:38 · answer #4 · answered by Jimfix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we lost a lot more soldiers in WWI and WWII. The only difference is that back then we didn't have our lovely media plastered all over the place reporting when another one dies. Wars are NOT fun, NOT nice and yes, we loose soldiers. Do you want us to win in Iraq? Do you want to be fighting the war on terrorizm here on your streets? Things will work out-wars are not won and lost on a dime. It takes time.
2006-12-13 22:18:11 · answer #5 · answered by Jessica W 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In over 3years of war we lost less than 3000. In one morning on 9/11 we lost over 3000.
If we pull out we will still be losing people it will not end the war only change where it is.
2006-12-13 22:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sad, but this is a low casualty rate.
This sort of war tends to be measured in decades, so settle in.
2006-12-14 03:20:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We kill 53, 000 people on the nations highways every year.
Where is your outrage about that. Or do you plan on blaming the
the President for that too.
MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a nice day.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!!!!
2006-12-13 22:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Thank you Jessica W., if all liberals could hear your description of the war, there would certainly not be as much opposition.
2006-12-13 22:25:42 · answer #9 · answered by Defcon6 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to fight a war--to keep you safe--that is a small price to pay--despite you people working for the terrorist's- or at least helping them out a lot--we well keep defending you--as you are--despite your blinding hatred for Bush
2006-12-13 22:19:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋