it has been reported on yahoo! news that the number of US troops that have been killed as a result of this so-called war on terror has far exceeded the total number of americans that were brutally attacked on september 11, 5 years ago.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The deaths of six more American soldiers in Iraq pushed the U.S. death toll to at least 2,978 -- five more than the number killed in the September 11 attacks -- as bombs killed more than 20 people in Baghdad on Tuesday.
At least 89 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, making it the deadliest this year after October's toll of 106, and adding pressure on President George W. Bush to find a strategy to extricate 135,000 US troops from the messy war.
the question i wanted to ask is whether this latest statistic coming out of iraq is a fair and legitimate assessment of the iraq war so far. what will be of bush and blair's legacy in all of this? how worse can it get come into the new year? & what do you make of this current crisis?
2006-12-26 07:48:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The comparison is valid I feel, since it has been clear for many months that there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11. Were the same number of soldiers killed in the hunt for Al Qaeda, I would certainly feel differently. As it stands, however, the fact that Bush continues to invoke the memory of 9/11 to justify a war that has been a waste of resources and has left the US more vulnerable to similar attacks justifies the comparison.
2006-12-26 08:21:08 · answer #1 · answered by Ron Biventropp 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it's not a fair comparison to make. Don't assume that because the media says something, that it's important, or that it's even true. The media says lots of stupid stuff. It looks like the media is trying to link 9-11 and the Iraq War. I haven't heard anybody else trying to link them.
Here's an interesting fact: In World War Two, American troops died at a rate of EIGHTY-TWO HUNDRED PER MONTH. Compare that to the Iraq War, if you want.
The goal of the war on terror is noble, and it's worth the cost. The cost is high, but it's worth the cost. It's to end terrorism, which is caused by dictatorships. I haven't heard a better plan for ending terrorism, have you?
We don't know what Bush & Blair's legacy will be. Perhaps they will fail to rally their citizens to this noble cause, and the noble cause will be lost, and Bush and Blair will be seen as failures (plus shame put upon the Americans and Brits who didn't support their nations at war). I hope not.
It's not really a "crisis." That's a verily over-used word. It's a long-term war on terrorism. It's gonna take years and years and years (as Bush has said over and over).
2006-12-26 09:37:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
this is all hypocrisy, my buddy. And all that American double-often occurring that the U. S. be unsleeping to distinctive international locations. what variety of advantageous judgment is it, that its pronounced as an act of conflict whilst distinctive international locations do it, and yet whilst the U. S. does a similar factor, its now no longer an act of conflict?. in the technique the Soviet-Afghan conflict (1979-1989), the U. S. provided palms and money to the Afghan mujahedeens (that lined the Taliban and the team of Osama Bin weighted down) who've been battling against the Soviet troops on the time. isn't this an act of conflict?. in the technique the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980-1988), the U. S. provided palms (that lined fighter aircrafts, floor-to-air missiles and chemical weapons) to Saddam Hussein, which he used against Iranian troops. isn't this an act of conflict?. in the technique the Arab-Israeli conflict (Yom Kippur conflict, 1973), the U. S. provided aircrafts, missiles, and weapons to Israel. This US help for Israel made Saudi Arabia impose an oil-embargo that led to severe gasoline rationing indoors the U. S.. Wasn't this US action an act of conflict?. in case you maintain an open innovations and evaluate what the Iranians are doing now and what the U. S. have been doing indoors the previous, do you spot any difference?. Now, take a closer inspect the information, then ask the question decrease returned for your self. And to the poster above me who's attempting to justify US previous movements via way of pointing out that featuring palms to international locations with a "status national armed forces" isn't an act of conflict, appropriate... his reasoning is warped and defies basic adventure. in case you remember the "Iran-Contra Deal" of the previous due 80's, the placement the U. S. provided weapons to Iran and use the money to finance the Contra rebels of Nicaragua. The Contras are rebels or insurgents (and not Nicaragua's status national armed forces). And the greater suitable severe actuality is that the U. S. provided weapons to Iran (which the U. S. had already in the previous declared as a opposed u . s . and u.s.'s sworn enemy). How could you justify such movements?.
2016-10-28 10:09:31 · answer #3 · answered by doti 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fight them there or over or have more attacks on US soil. You have to take in account of the other deaths in the last few decades. One is the attacks during the 1972 Olympics. The death on the Wheel Chair bound Americain. On the cruise ship in the 80's. The Bruit bombings of the marine barracks. The solder out of uniform on a High jack air plane. The Kabal towers bombings The first World trade center attack. That failed to topple them as planned. Many was killed or injured them. The USS Cole attack. The derailed bombing attempt of 1999. When some man was caught trying to sneak in explosives in from Canada. Around the 2000 news years. His or there plans was to attack the Space needle or LA's Airport. The shoe bomber that the flight crew noticed. I probley missed others.
Our freedoms are at stake here. It goes a lot deeper than whats on the TV news. The Musluim trerroists have France pretty close to being a Calipte
2006-12-26 08:20:43 · answer #4 · answered by David A 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
First of all, this war on terrorism is a neccessity. If we do not stand up for what we believe in, more terrorism will come of it. Secondly, troops are trained for this. You do not become a soldier if you do not want to live and die for your country. Thirdly, the amount of soldiers lost in this conflict is a drop in the bucket when compared to the losses we suffered in World War II, Korean Conflictm, and the Vietnam War. I think that it is justifiable. Bush's and Blair's legacy as already been sealed in the history books as being the ones who stood up to terrorism. Simple as that. And, U.S. troops will always be in Iraq, even after peace has been brought about the country. Hell, we still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan.
2006-12-26 08:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by subsystem2001 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Its not a numbers game but it is inevitable people [news networks] will draw comparisons. I fear it will get a lot, lot worse with the Vietnam debacle a pale and insignificant reflection. History will blame Bush and his shadow Blair for the misinformation and lies to go to war.
2006-12-27 04:33:22 · answer #6 · answered by James Mack 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How many Americans died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? About 2500.
How many died during WWII? About 400,000
Wanna guess how many civilians? over 60 million
Compare that to this world war.
2006-12-26 10:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No , they should take into account the thousands of innocent lives taken since invading Iraq and not just the soldiers who have died ...
2006-12-26 07:58:30 · answer #8 · answered by jizzumonkey 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
it makes good copy anyway.
2006-12-26 14:05:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋