Reason I ask is it looks to me like the more liberal fray of the YA community seems like theyre actually shocked that people are dying there and it seems like their entire argument for ending a war that could invariably change the course for the entire middle east. People have been dying there since before experts could document it. I mean people were dying somewhere in the world during every presidential campaign but it seems like people talk more because of the media coverage. Dont you think that it has a lot to do with the fact that youre getting daily updates on how many people die on the daily news? So why would it be better for you to kill someone because you and all your buddies get into a barfight because of an argument or get drunk and run someone over in your car but its not okay to kill people to insure that more people dont have to suffer?
2007-01-11 13:47:50 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm actually shocked that more people haven't been killed. I mean, this is a war and all. 3,000 killed so far in Iraq? That would have been a rough DAY in many other wars.
What will be more shocking is when we have to go back again in 10 years because we left an unstable government that was overrun by extremists who are really a threat to the US and the rest of the middle east.
This will of course be after the mass genocide that will happen when all the people who supported the US in Iraq are killed. Similarly to the Kurds when we told them after Desert Storm that we would support them and help them but we basically left them for slaughter.
2007-01-11 17:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by jkoons 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are all over the map here, your argument makes no sense. If you heard what bush and rumsfeld and others said before the war then you should also be shocked by the amount of death and killing in Iraq right now, years after the invasion.
The media is doing a poor job of reporting on the humanitarian costs of the war.
And no, morally, it's not OK for you to kill innocent people so that other people dont' have to suffer. That's called murder. What if everyone made those decisions about the deaths of others and started acting on them?
2007-01-11 21:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is shocking is that we did not find weapons of mass destruction which were the excuse for starting the war in the first place; what is shocking, is that we did not win the so called war in the two or three weeks that we thought it would take us to win it (we are still fighting it); what is shocking is that over 3,000 American coffins came home (I believe that the American casualties of war are much more); what is shocking, is that we are sending another 30,000 soldiers to this doomed place; what is shocking, is why we did not win the war as our well read and informed government thought that it would???
2007-01-11 22:01:02 · answer #3 · answered by markos m 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last time I checked, I'm not paying $400 billion for the guy to get killed in a bar fight. I'm paying $400 billion for the loss of American and innocent Iraqi lives for no good reason. The people of Iraq are no better off now than they were 10 years ago. The Bush administration is completely responsible for effing up their country. Wake up.
2007-01-11 21:53:49 · answer #4 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are NOT enough & never have been enough troops to EVER win the war in Iraq or if it gets even worse and spreads throughout the Mideast. So unless there is a major draft in the US it is pointless to let US troops die in Iraq and even dumber to send a "band aid brigade" of 20,000 more US troops that will just be more IED causlities.
2007-01-11 21:58:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good observation,
The middle East in general has always been a prefered hangout for the angel of death. I think it's in part by many reasons, but the most prevalent being that the people over there do not value life.
They value revenge and religion above all other things.
2007-01-11 21:53:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it's not shocking that people are dying in Iraq.
Does this answer your question?
Or was your question more along the lines of, "Why are the people protesting the war related eaths not protesting other preventable deaths?"
Well, who says they aren't? Who says the people protesting the war in demonstrations aren't also protesting tobacco companies, for example?
2007-01-11 21:53:58 · answer #7 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What people don't seem to realise is... that far more Iraqis will die if the Americans leaves Iraq.
The rebels will commit another genocide.
2007-01-11 21:53:59 · answer #8 · answered by Aussies-Online 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In February 2003, it was only Iraqis dying, now it's us. See the difference?
2007-01-11 21:55:29 · answer #9 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
more people killed on our highways every month than in iraq...you dont hear the dems screaming about that...its got a lot to do with the dems not having a say in what happened in iraq...they are being a bunch of petty, partisan children that are not watching out for america.....
2007-01-11 21:53:19 · answer #10 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋