Is it worth 3,000 American soldiers dying to possibly prevent another attack? I'm not trying to imply that it is not; I'm just curious for opinions.
This question, of course, gives Bush the benefit of the doubt and presumes that we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism...
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
2007-01-02 05:01:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is not a genuine question is it? We are at war! People die in wars. We have honorable soldiers dying so you can ask a question like the above and not have someone removing your toe nails one at a time. Your question is short-sighted.
2007-01-02 05:06:46 · answer #1 · answered by lindakflowers 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
it is true that the news programs are celebrating today that we have finally had the same number of soldiers die as civilians did on 911 and of course they are crossing their fingers hoping for many more in the new year. they are always very careful to when listing casualties to make it appear that we are killing Iraqi civilians who are fighting us back by saying that x# of Iraqis were killed today in the war and x# of Americans were killed by a roadside bomb, suggesting that we are on opposite sides. instead they should be honest and say that x# of Iraqis and x# of Americans were killed today by insurgents. they further hope to confuse people into voting democrat by suggesting that this 1 to1 ratio is wildly out of whack. notice that they never actually say that we are fighting Iraqi civilians or that this ratio is bad they just imply it. but doing so everyday for years has had its desired effect. just look at our last elections.
the fact is that in other wars 300,000 to 1 was never considered unacceptable. protecting the innocent is what this war is all about. that is what soldiers do.
2007-01-02 13:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by karl k 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Based on the FACT that we have had no attacks on our soil, and the troops high moral despite the lies of the liberal media, YES!
2007-01-04 14:02:11 · answer #3 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alot more Americans died in WWII fighting Germans than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor. There where some people who argued we never should have entered WWII, but most people understand that it is necessary to stand up to aggresive and antagonistic forces, (Naziism, Radical Islam),before they grow out of control.
2007-01-02 13:06:51 · answer #4 · answered by archimedes_crew 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The comparison is irrelevant.
Many, many more Americans died in Europe in WWII - hundreds of thousands - than died at Pearl Harbor, which is not in Europe. So what?
2007-01-02 13:20:16 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Dang, I was going to answer your question, but can't do it now because I can't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one, it would kill brain cells I use every day.
2007-01-02 13:10:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Soldiers sign up to pay for school or to serve their country. Either way they signed up knowing they have to do what their Commander orders them to do.
2007-01-02 13:11:20 · answer #7 · answered by Abu 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 I would have to say that no, this war has not been worth the price in lives no matter how many.
2007-01-02 13:08:20 · answer #8 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋