2007-07-06 11:07:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
This same thing happened during Vietnam--very few of the supporters served or even had relatives that served...
2007-07-06 11:18:25 · update #1
10,000 to 40,000 dead Iraqis is a gross underestimation. It angers me that people are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.
2007-07-06 13:02:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not just the media, it's the white house and congress who have been pushing for this war in iraq and afghanistan and now they're looking at iran and syria. Bush and Cheney never saw a war zone, nor did most or all of the white house neo-conservatives who rallied for this war. They're frustrated wanna-be soldiers, who are too chicken to take the risks to go to war themselves, but live through the lives of people who have more courage in their little finger than the neo-con's have in their whole body and in their poor excuse for a brain.
Why aren't bush and cheney's kids fighting in iraq, if they're so gung-ho about this war? Aren't they patriots? or are they traitors if they won't fight for the wars their parents expect other families children to die in?
Congress isn't much better, few of them have had to watch their friends die around them. And you can bet few of them have had their relatives go to iraq.
My partner went to the first iraq war and saw plenty of people die in that war. I can't imagine what it would be like in this iraq war with over 3,000 American troops and 10,000 to 40,000 iraqi's dead around you.
Some media-they pushed this war so hard, but how many are on the front lines with the troops risking their lives?
2007-07-06 19:11:08 · answer #2 · answered by rip_2_4_u 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I served for 13 years. Does that count?
2007-07-06 18:11:58 · answer #3 · answered by dranet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because everyone in the news has been in the news business for a while and aren't exactly military material. They probably have many family members that are going to war for them.
Seriously can you imagine a forty year old who probably has heart trouble or something of the like going through boot camp. More than likely the military wouldn't take them.
2007-07-06 18:16:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ten Commandments 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yup you are right. Check out all the Republicans who sent those kids off to war...you will notice there is ONLY 1!!!! ONE! Republican who has a child serving over there...tells you a lot...kind of reminds me of when the civil war was going on and the rich were able to buy themselves out from going to battle...
2007-07-06 18:10:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Monday morning quarterbacking. It's easy to sit back, relax and bad mouth the quarterback or the coaches decision. However, getting into the game yourself and getting tackled or tackling someone is a bit more difficult. :))
2007-07-10 17:33:51 · answer #6 · answered by jorst 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's alot safer to support war from the safety of the sidelines- than it is when you're standing in the line of fire...
2007-07-06 18:22:54 · answer #7 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was un able to serve, I was disqualified a MEPS (Med Eval Proscessing Startion)
So you can Go to Hell
2007-07-06 18:11:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point, and bush himself never really served.
2007-07-06 18:09:41 · answer #9 · answered by big stan 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋