Why do Conservatives say, "It's only 3500 Americans killed in 4 years"?

Question

Is it because they do not have anyone over there? I have 4 cousins in Iraq.
Isn't 1 life too much for Bush's war?
If we had a clear strategy and knew what we were fighting for wouldn't we with the best army in the world have succeeded by now?

nicolasra..., that's a slur on three brave marines and one brave medic.

Answer 1

It shows you the dichotomous mentality that pervades much of conservative thought in this country. A vast majority of them are all about pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue and preventing stem cell research, and they all wax philosophical about how one baby’s precious life or a group of stem cells, sacrificed for a woman’s right to choose, or for life saving research, is one baby or one stem cell too much.

Yet in the same breath they can easily look at the 3,000 plus American kids dying in Iraq, and thousands more Iraqi dead, and trivialize it by saying well “it ONLY has been 3,000 soldiers and 30,000 Iraqis.” Is this really pro-life? Hardly. What this is pro-convenience. They extol the virtue of life when it doesn’t cost them anything, and they trivialize the value of life, when the preservation of it will prevent them from making a profit from the business of war. Their supposed “moral” framework doesn’t center around life, but is instead preoccupied with profit.

This is fundamentally why we lack a strategy. To have a strategy to win would mean we couldn’t spend more time in the country we are profiting off of. The less time we spend time in Iraq, means less money Bush and his business cronies can garner from the Iraq occupation.

Answer 2

In other major conflicts of this magnitude that America has fought in, the death toll has been much higher for our soldiers.

True, while 1 soldier's death is too much 3000 deaths in the World Trade Center is far and away totally unacceptible.

At least our soldiers know what they're getting into. The Twin Towers civilians had no chance.

We have as clear a strategy as one can have, given the situation. We have to take out terrorism, and we start by wiping out the governments of those countries who support terrorism. We started with Afghanistan and Iraq...Iran has to be next, along with Syria.

It has to happen if we are to overcome terror, or at least get a handle on it.

Answer 3

Because "Conservatives" do not say that (It is the leftist media that makes a point to throw those numbers out on a daily basis so the left can feel good in their appeasement and dissent). The war is being fought to secure Iraq's democracy. The left should be happy that people are free and not living under the tyrant Saddam anymore. I served and will do so again if needed. 3500 men and women is a lot less than the roughly 25 million during WWII. Sometimes war is necessary and that is reality and the truth.

Answer 4

You said in your profile that you're looking for the "truth always." Well, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT: we've lost 3,000 soldiers in Iraq, not 3,500. Beyond that, 3,000 or 3,500 is NADA compared to World Wars 1 and 2, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Civil War. THERE'S the truth for you pal! Can you handle it?

By the way, information_police, we lost 3,000 American lives IN ONLY ONE DAY!!!!! The 3,000 that we've lost in Iraq has taken THREE AND A HALF YEARS (over a thousand days)!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't be bringing a knife to a gun fight boy! Your argument is more laughable than Rosie O Donnell's looks!

Sources on death toll:www.antiwar.com

If that's not a reliable source, I don't know what is! (LOL!)

Answer 5

Yes, in spirit one man is too much to lose. but if that is policy, you could NEVER deploy the military. When you hear "only 3500" i think they are comparing to the losses of WWII and the Vietnam war. We nearly had Iraq finished and then we allowed Iraq to place all kinds of demands and restrictions on us. Everything went to hell at that point. Thankfully, Iraq has wisely removed all such restrictions on our military. The strategy recently outlined is our best chance at stablizing Iraq. If we leave that job unfinished, it will end up costing many more American and Iraqi lives. Conflict would spill out through the whole region between sunnis and shia. We would loose our credability in the war on terror. Oil would go out of control and the economy would tank. And as frosting on the cake, terrorists would be emboldened to hit us again and again. There is alot at stake. jason

Answer 6

it particularly is the fashion of concepts-set that has made the united states and its electorate the most despised over the purely appropriate fifty years. you would appreciate torturing yet would it not help you in looking the actuality? some human beings would say something to end or shrink the torture and at the same time as you've were given off on it, it probably has executed no longer something to make your crap little international any safer.

Answer 7

I am here in Iraq and yes it is 3500 troops killed. We are here because we chose to be soldiers. Like a police officer we join knowing the possibilities of getting hurt or killed. We are not Innocent Civilians going to work and having someone drive a plane into us. War is about Killing and Blowing things up got it? By the time we got into WW2 100's of thousands had been killed. 3 Years after we were in 10's of thousand US soldiers were dead and we looked to be loosing!!! A few Months later we Lost 81,000 in a few days. Guys like you are ill.

Answer 8

Let me ask you a question, how long did we occupy Germany and Japan after World War Two? We occupied Japan for 7 years and Germany for 4 years before we returned sovereignty to them. Even after that we had large occupation forces in those countries to ensure order was maintained.
Why do people think that a regime change can happen overnight? Especially in a place with so much secular violence, rebuilding a stable democratic Iraq will take years there is NO way around that. The people who want to desert Iraq talk about the 3000 soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq as to high a price to pay. Considering that we have been in Iraq for almost 4 years casualties have been light. In the battle of Iwo Jima 7000 American Soldiers lost their lives fighting for freedom, 7000! That is one battle, 7000 dead in 36 days. It is sad to see so many Americans so gutless so unwilling to stand up against terrorists, unwilling to fight for a better world. What would happen if we were faced against a major threat and we lost 7000 men in 36 days, would most in this country beg for us to surrender?

Answer 9

Why do Liberals call it 'Bushs' War'?!? All this "Islamic Fanatasim/Fasism -Let's bomb and kill All Americans" started during Clintons' reign. Our strategy is to get rid of those killers and terrorists there and help the Iraqis' run their own country. We're not Russia!! We dont "plant flags and set up colonies" in other countries. We're doing good things there. The media isnt showing it tho. That whole "...supply the blood/ supply the ink"...theory the media loves.

Answer 10

It's not good that we lost anyone, let alone 3500 people.

I think the gulf war is just as much about diverting terrorism from the US to Iraq, as it is about freeing the iraqi people.

I don't agree with the war, but thats the rationale

Also, considering where most enlistees come from, if you were to track them as civilians, a lot more would be dead. Weird but true, they're statistically safer in Iraq. They said the same thing about the blacks who served in Vietnam.

The bush administration is clearly the most disasterous administration in US history. Even republicans are distancing themselves from Bush. Two more years? Jeez