Think that over 3,000 dead Americans and many more thousands maimed for life is a drop in the bucket? They always compare that number to other wars. Is this belittling of our dead troops the ultimate disrespect? Does this show how much contempt they have for our brave service men and women?
2007-03-20 05:38:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They always phrase it "only 3,000".
2007-03-20 05:41:57 · update #1
From Tom. See what I mean.
Simple. You anti war people have no perspective. 3,000 casualties in four years is lower than the number of murders in this country in the last four years. Heck, it's close to the number of murders in New York City. When are we going to get out of the quagmire of NYC. We could rename Queens as New Tikrit.
It's you throw up that number as some sort of argument against the war. If that is so, what would you call WWII based only on the number of casualties? What would you call the Battle of the Bulge (almost 20,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and 20,000 captured.)? What would you call the 70% of Iraqis who defied terrorists, and voted in a free election?
2007-03-20 05:51:21 · update #2
From Mother.
2007-03-20 05:52:39 · update #3
From Mother
We use the wording "Only 3000"' because the liberal media keeps lying about the number. The conspiracy theorist and wackos keep saying that it is 20,000. Just like they lie and say 650,000 Iraqis have been killed my American soldiers
2007-03-20 05:53:02 · update #4
No it just means they believe the job must be done no matter what the sacrifice.
Whether you agree with war supporters or not it is ludicrous to say that they have no respect for the troops lives.
2007-03-20 05:41:38 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Simple. You anti war people have no perspective. 3,000 casualties in four years is lower than the number of murders in this country in the last four years. Heck, it's close to the number of murders in New York City. When are we going to get out of the quagmire of NYC. We could rename Queens as New Tikrit.
It's you throw up that number as some sort of argument against the war. If that is so, what would you call WWII based only on the number of casualties? What would you call the Battle of the Bulge (almost 20,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and 20,000 captured.)? What would you call the 70% of Iraqis who defied terrorists, and voted in a free election?
2007-03-20 12:48:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Listen folks: This so called war is a sham. If it were an actual war we would have already conquered this Country. A warrior rules with an iron fist. They do not play the roll of Police Officer. We should not have lost this many men to death or injury. Feluja (SP) for example should have been destroyed by artillery , rockets and air attacks. Instead we played door to door search. Al Sadr was inside a Mosque - he and his followers were killing American Soldiers. The orders of the Generals were: Let him leave with his Army. This bastard today is free and killing American men. If it were a war then the Mosque would have been turned into dust and Al Sadr would be DEAD. Stop listening to the lies about getting the job done. This is exactly how we played this game in Vietnam. WAKE UP AMERICA - Demand that our military be allowed to be warriors or lets come the fk home.
12 years I served - I am a Republican, but I am an American Patriot first.
2007-03-20 12:51:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How many of the respective Republicans have their own child over there fighting and is their sacrifice if killed worth it to them. No one should expect someone else to bleed and die for their cause if they are not willing to sacrifice as well. The Bush twins are safe at home. Cheney children are not in the military. It is easy to send someone else to do something you would not do yourself. When Bush's time to serve in Viet Nam came, Daddy hid him in the National Guard and war was hell there in Alabama. Most members of his unit do not even remember him being there. One can be very brave from the Oval Office when his own butt is not under fire. When it was his own time, however, none of that bravado was evident. There has to be accountability for this mess. The respect the Republicans have is shown in the way the wounded from Iraq have been treated. Walter Reed is just one example of how they are treated. Their disabilities are downplayed so less will be paid to them for disabled pensions. No wonder enlistment is down.
2007-03-20 12:55:37 · answer #4 · answered by kolacat17 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think it far more contemptuous to have our elected officials approve our new general unanimously, then - the very next day - try to draught 'non-binding' resolutions to undermine his chances of success when those same brave men and women will be in harms way ?
One life is theoreticly too much to sacrifice...however this is not a theoretical world.
It is important to point out how relatively few casualties we have sustained when the anti-war factions keep emphisizing how many there are.
It's called 'both sides of the story.'
It is also important to put those losses in context with other conflicts.
Why? Because it clearly illustrates that had America been subject to the same type of sedition and undermining that this current president is beleagured by, we would NEVER have won WW2.
In fact we would have cut and run the day after the Battle of the Bulge .
Normandy? No liberal in the US would stand for that type of action today.
2007-03-20 12:49:01 · answer #5 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is the ultimate disrespect and the people who like to compare these numbers to a drop in the bucket will turn around and talk about 9/11 being the cause for Iraq War which was about the same in loss of life.
No one mentions the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who have died, been displaced or are living in daily terror now due to this illegal war.
The people who support this war are usually making money from it or so divorced from reality, they don't care about human suffering. They have no skin in the game.
Condi has sacrificed. She wasn't able to find a purse to match her Ferragamo shoes because people kept interrupting her while she was shopping to criticize her poor diplomatic skills.
2007-03-20 12:48:42 · answer #6 · answered by realst1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why does the media have to keep a running tally like it is some sort of game?
Every soldier we lose is a horrible loss, but such losses are necessary from time to time, and our soldiers know this, and make a sacrafice for our nation. They deserve to be known as heroes and partiots which none of us who didn't fight can say.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson
We don't belittle the cost of our soldiers lives, but if that is the cost to protect our country, and keep innoncent Americans alive and safe, it is a price we unfortunately have to pay.
As far as comparing them to other wars, when this war is compared to Vietnam, we need to compare the cost of both wars, that comparison is unavoidable. If people don't want the lives lost in this war to be compared to other wars, don't comare this war to other wars, because it can't. We have never fought an enemy like this.
2007-03-20 12:52:31 · answer #7 · answered by Angelus2007 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We use the wording "Only 3000"' because the liberal media keeps lying about the number. The conspiracy theorist and wackos keep saying that it is 20,000. Just like they lie and say 650,000 Iraqis have been killed my American soldiers.
2007-03-20 12:50:26 · answer #8 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, War Supporter is not right.
Realists who recognize force is required at certain times.
Nobody in their right mind supports a war.
Secondly, we are doing very well in this conflict compared to other conflicts. You can say what you like, but it doesn't change the fact. One death is too many, but the cause is right.
Thirdly, if we pull out and let chaos reign in Iraq, than these lives will surely have been wasted. Then you have done what YOU want. Which is to waste these lives for nothing. Much like Vietnam, you antiwar, enemy comforting loser.
2007-03-20 12:46:49 · answer #9 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Puhleeeze. One generality followed by another.
I do not think this way. Every death and every soldier wounded are a tragedy for them and their families.
I honor their sacrifice so much that I find it horrible that some in our government would scorn them by proposing that our strategic goal in Iraq should be reduced to how fast we can get out.
They have succeeded in turning this into politics and no one wins that battle but politicians. Not our country, not Iraq and certainly not our brave soldiers who have sacrificed so much.
2007-03-20 12:45:30 · answer #10 · answered by cappi 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"Only" 3,000, notice the only is never political figure family members or rally cry of the war supporters family. Disgusting to say the least.
2007-03-20 12:45:55 · answer #11 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋