*(11-Aug-2007 5 | US: 5 Dead.)*
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
*(10-Aug-2007 1 | US: 1 dead.)*
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Tikrit Non-hostile
2007-08-12 13:17:59 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You are not looking at them. You are making up evil lies to demonize the people who protect your freedom.
2007-08-12 15:24:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think DesertViking pretty much nailed this.
He stated " there were 9,555 active duty deaths between 1980 and 1984. And I can surmise that you didn't give one damn about them because their passing didn't fit into your twisted political agenda. "
When people start pulling out numbers in relation to the Iraq situation it really is pathetic. The fact of the matter is that we loose more US Armed Forces personnel in automobile accidents BACK HOME per week than we do while DEPLOYED IN COMBAT.
So Erudite, if your objective is to save US military personnel why aren't you starting a campaign to send more troops into the combat zone? It would seem from a statistical standpoint that it would save more lives.
Let me answer that question for you...it simply wouldn't fit in with your agenda.
2007-08-12 13:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by h h 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Oh, gosh. It is HIM again.
I can guarantee you are NOT looking at them. Go get a life and stop asking stupid questions.
And, watch your local morning news, I can bet you will see about that many deaths from car accidents, drunk drivers, murders, or any other violent crime.
2007-08-12 14:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by redonhead90 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because you are a morbid fool? This is just another one of your attempts at bashing. Seems it's all you have time to do. That said, I have to go along with desertviking.
2007-08-12 14:59:24 · answer #4 · answered by doctdon 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You know why; to make Iraq a democratic nation, and fight Al-Qua'eda.
At least that's what the Bush Administration is now claiming our goals in Iraq are.
It is ironic that we are selling weapons to the Sunnis who used to be in league with Al-Qua'eda, and who are fighting against the Shi'ites, who make up the majority of the new government.
2007-08-12 13:35:38 · answer #5 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because it is war .....
How many deadly car accidents were this week end? How many people died from murders in the U.S? I bet we see at least 6 of those on the morning news.
2007-08-12 14:45:31 · answer #6 · answered by Ann 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you are pacifist, then any death by violence is bad. So yes, those casulaties (in the 80's) meant something to ME at least...
2007-08-12 13:25:00 · answer #7 · answered by da s 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Uh, I'm not sure. Poor training and equipment (thanks Dems) ? Taking Mexicans into the army? Maybe they didn't speak English and the noncom that yelled "duck" couldn't say it in Mexicanish! I am just not sure, could you find out and get back to me?
Thanks
2007-08-12 13:28:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
You're not looking at them. Their families will be looking at them. BTW, there were 9,555 active duty deaths between 1980 and 1984. And I can surmise that you didn't give one damn about them because their passing didn't fit into your twisted political agenda.
2007-08-12 13:22:58 · answer #9 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 9⤊ 2⤋
Have you seen them? You should know their names then.
2007-08-12 13:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by erehwon 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋