In war u are suppose to have casualties, you are suppose to inflict casualties. The problem with the American people is that we want to go to war with no casualties. Our soldiers know the risks.
2007-01-30 09:49:22 · 8 answers · asked by abbyrose 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Something funny was sent to me in the email today:
"Subject: interesting info
If you consider that there has been
an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000
soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the
same period.
That means that you are about 33% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capitol, which has the strictest gun control laws in the
nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington."
Thought it was interesting, and somewhat on point.
2007-01-30 10:21:14 · answer #1 · answered by straightup 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an Amreican, I don't feel a war should be fought without casualties. As a combat vet (Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and Somalia), I've seen more than my fair share of casualties. To answer your question, most people only know whatever the news media tells them at 6 o'clock. Still, there are those vocal few that demand all of the media attention and spout off without presenting fact or resource. And THOSE people, are spoiled, unrealistic and are without reason. As for the news media, regardless of your political views, is purely there to make money. They do that by telling you what you want to hear. Take the AP for instance, they are absolutely bound and determined to make sure you know how many people in the U.S. military has died from one week to the next in Iraq. What they don't tell you is that on average, it's still less than 3 men per day and that as a civilian, you stand a greater risk of being severely injured in a traffic accident. And for the record, Patton in 1944, lost on average 87 men a day during a good month and between Nov. and Dec., he lost an average of 812 men a day. This, fighting a uniformed military.
2007-01-30 10:23:38 · answer #2 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Americans are ok with casualties, but not ones that they feel are wasted. The deaths in Iraq are being viewed as wasted deaths because the perception is that there is no plan, no way to achieve either victory or self dependence of the Iraqis. If Americans felt something positive was happening, could see results for the lost lives, they would handle it much better, but for now, they just see nothing happening but the deaths of our soldiers because we don't know what else to do.
2007-01-30 10:17:04 · answer #3 · answered by psycmikev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im Army-ive been to Iraq twice since this war started. Yes, i stand a better chance working as an electrician of being killed on the job than i do of being killed in Iraq. Still, its not the same. My family worries more about me when i was overseas in Iraq. Its just natural to worry more about people in a warzone.
Also, there is the whole issue of if this war was justified. As a soldier, i have to say i support the mission and i support the President. When i take off my uniform-well my feelings are a little different. Yeah, i support my fellow soldiers and always will but i must admit at times i wonder what the Hell we have gotten into and if its worth it.
2007-01-30 10:05:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think Americans believe because they have so much miltary knowhow that casualities will be next to zero. While this is true the "axis of evil" fight with terrorist tactics because it is the only chance they have against American mite.
Another part of this is how Americans have never seen the full aftermath of war compared to other nations in the world wars. Plus, no largescale conflicts have ever taken place on American soil so most Americans are just plain unaware of the realities of war.
2007-01-30 10:12:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The SOLDIERS know the risks, you are right on that one. CIVILIANS do not know the risks, and THEY are the ones complaining. Soldiers, for the most part, do not complain. They are called upon to fight a war because it is their duty. They cannot say no, and if they do, they are punished.
2007-01-30 09:58:26 · answer #6 · answered by SassySours 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually the majority of Americans don't want to be in a war, period. (According to News Polls)
2007-01-30 09:59:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No, the problem is that we didn't have to invade Iraq. That's the truth of it.
2007-01-30 09:56:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋