To liken D-Day and civil war battles with what is going on now in Iraq is ludicrous. There were real reasons for us to be fighting then, there are none for this one.
And that cannon fodder you mention could have been my husband who served 20 years in the Marine Corps. I bet you won't find too many people who are related to military men who will appreciate this.
2007-07-13 09:32:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by slykitty62 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The concept is still with us. Consider the fact that many support positions are manned by women or by foreign national subcontractors. Some skilled and sought after positions such as guarding dignitaries are filled by Blackwater contractors. If you're a male who volunteered for the military or the nat'l guard, guess what you're likely to be...
2007-07-13 08:55:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
America has gotten sensible about picking its battles. In a righteous war (one in which we are attacking the same people that attacked us first), casualties are expected and accepted as the real cost of freedom. However, nobody wants soldiers dying based on corporate interest, personal greed, or executive incompetency.
2007-07-13 08:55:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by David M 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
More like the color yellow but remember congress approves/disapproves use of force Be careful where you lay All of the blame in a feeble attempt to attack the Prez
2007-07-13 08:52:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
the logic of the right - HURRAH FOR MORE AMERICAN CASUALTIES!!!!
I take it you who sit in your air conditioned room in front of your computer, thousands of miles away fron Iraq, asking mundane questions were never "cannon fodder" correct?
How easy is it for the people who are NOT cannon fodder to ask wistfully about cannon fodder?
2007-07-13 08:52:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by captain_koyk 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
It's the presidents war, always has been always will be, I believe the buck stops here.
2007-07-13 08:54:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by crushinator01 5
·
0⤊
1⤋