Mission Accomplished?
2,000 soldiers dead and George said there’s more to come. How comforting. I guess starting a war and leaving them in Iraq to die is just his way of “supporting the troops”.
2,000 dead American soldiers.
Approximately 30,000 plus dead Iraqi's.
Billions of dollars spent.
The value of human life: PRICELESS.
2,000 dead American soldiers.
Approximately 30,000 plus dead Iraqi's.
Billions of dollars spent.
The value of human life: PRICELESS.
12 Comments:
All you can do is hope that in like a century or something, people will look back and say, "Yes, the U.S. made the right choice." That's what I'm hoping for anyway, because right now, this seems to be one of the great follies of our time.
2,000 dead is nothing. I'm not saying that a life should ever be considered expendable, but they were soldiers. They knew what they were getting into. Nothing that was worth having ever came easy. You don't think 2,000 lives is a small price to pay for the freedom of a country?
Please. Calling for their retreat is no more supporting the troops than telling a fireman to ditch a burning house still filled with children is supporting firefighters.
Try this figure: 26 million Iraqis made free.
And this one: 26 million lives hang in the balance should they need to realy on a goverment not yet ready to stand on its own.
I was a soldier too, once.
Yes, they DID sign up voluntarily to defend this country. But, they didn't sign up to fight a war under BAD intelligence. 2,000 lives lost could have been avoided. There ARE other ways to extract a dictator.
I did NOT call for a retreat, but no military on Earth can sustain an occupation of a Middle East country for a long period of time. Which brings me to this question - what ever happened to Bush's Coalition of the Willing. Where was this HELP from other countries? Why is the U.S. the ONLY one leaving soldiers to die?
Soldiers are are not supermen or superwomen. When you leave ANY person under duress for months and months under such hostile environment, you're bound for failure and death.
If you had a family member who died in this war, 2,000 might have been a bigger deal. No, 1 may have been a bigger deal. Leave your insensitivty for the Bush White House will ya?
Oh, and thanks for visiting my site, Andrew L.
God bless!
Wow... :)
I haven't researched this or anything but most of the deaths that occur in the military usually aren't people getting killed in combat. Most are killed from things like hellicopter failure, not enough gun or granande training and someone kills one of their own guys, someone gets run over by a truck. There are military people getting killed every year during basic training while here in the US. I bet if you really want to research this you would find that most of the deaths that occured over there were not from "them" killing "us".
This isn't to say anything about if we should be there or not, I am just pointing out how many unknown deaths happen every year in the military that have nothing to do with combat.
(This is from what my dad told me, he is a retired Marine.)
Ches,
I agree. A large percentage of deaths happen by friendly fire or accidents. But, don't you think that any person under stress for long periods of time is just susceptible for mishaps and accidents as well. This is why companies give employees vacation time. Even in the normal business world, stress causes low productivity and mistakes. It's the same in the military. There's no reason for soldiers to spend that much time away from their families and trying to stay alive everyday. It's just reckless to put anyone in that type of situation.
I think thinking of the military as a company and soldiers as employees is kind of foolish. War isn't a business. Soldiers in WWII were fighting and away from home for two to three years straight. It's not like they don't like soldiers, but we need man power to keep Iraq together right now, and sending people home for "vacation" isn't the best move. Sure people need break in war because of stress or low morale, but c'mon. In the fragile state that Iraq is in right now, they need all the help they can get. It's like letting some of the staff from a newspaper on vacation just when the story of the century has occurred. I think Bush is trying very hard to keep the soldiers' morale high. Personally, fighting for the freedom of another country would be a great thing, but then again...I've never been a soldier or been in combat.
I doubt that Bush is just "leaving [the soldiers] in Iraq to die." America is basically working to completely rebuild a country, and soldiers are still needed there to make sure it doesn't fall apart. Like Andrew said, 26 million people are now hanging on this new government that isn't stable yet. That is why the U.S. is still there - to make sure it doesn't fall apart. 26 million people are safer now than they would be if the U.S. left, and it sure is safer than when Hussein was still running the country. Sure, two-thousand dead. Don't call me morbid, but I'm proud of the soldiers out there (living and fallen) for fighting for our country and fighting for freedom.
Exactly, soldiers have it easier these days than ever before. With the advent of technology in communication, understanding in psychology, heck, even the MRE's, soldiers are having to face far less than their counterparts in previous wars.
If you're not calling for a retreat, then what are you calling for? I don't see how fighting a war is "leaving soldiers to die" other than the fact that death is sort of an occupational hazard in war. To answer your question, I'm pretty sure that there are still Brit troops in Iraq, seeing as a few died just this week. And don't forget Poland.
I'm sure it would seem a lot more significant if someone I knew and love died protecting the freedom that everyone should have. But make no mistake: I would not in any way feel that they died without cause. Far from it. In fact, I bet the Iraqis feel the same way about their loved ones. Which is why 2000 American lives are in my opinion, a small price to pay for the freedom of an entire nation.
A picture is worth a thousand words
Wow. Touchy subject.
Like I said before, a lot of these soldiers that joined the military are regular people. For some reason, we have this concept of soldiers as being invicible, war- hungry, video-game, characters. Well, it's not like that. Most of the Army and Marine people who I've met during my military days, are just kids who are barely out of high school. The media has painted a false picture of what soldiers really are - they're just kids, husbands, and fathers. I don't think they LOVE fighting a war. And also, I don't think they LOVE being seen as occupiers - which is NOT their fault. Oh, and MRE's are good but not to eat for a whole year.
Regarding the "retreat" thing, read my previous post, Andrew. Oh, and I don't think you can consider the U.S., Brits, and Pols, a COALITION. Goes to show you how many OTHER countries have backed away from this mess.
Don't get me wrong, someone in the world has to do the dirty work. However, with all the information WE KNOW NOW, war was totally unecessary. Yeah, it's great that Saddam is now captured and being tried. George did good on that. However, the guy who's really responsible for 9/11 is still out on the loose. What's up with that?
I hope you guys are right - that hopefully, 25 years from now, Iraq will finally be FREE.
Just to say one thing: why has Osama Bin Laden not been captured yet? Well, just cuz' the U.S. has the greatest amount of resources to find him, doesn't mean it's easy. We have a hard time finding serial killers and criminals in our own country. Can't even find that Zodiac killer dude who's killed like 30 people or something like that. If killers can evade the government within our own borders, how much harder do you think it is to find one the most well connected terrorist who is an expert in disappearing? Also, everyone and their mother over on that side of the world is probably more than happy and willing to hide him. We're searching for him on foreign soil against people who don't want us there, don't think finding him is gonna be an easy task. Can't find him within a year, 5 years 10 years, who knows, may never find him. Sides, even if we did find him, be awesome to put him to justice no doubt about that, but it's not gonna discourage or put a stop to terrorists. If anything, it'll fuel even more desire to committ more terrorist attacks. That's the unique thing about terrorists, especially Muslim ones who are willing to die for the sake of their cause and what they believe to be right and evil. When you cut off the head of the snake, the snake doesn't die, it grows three more just like Muslim terrorist cells. When one cell is captured, another one is activated. Should watch The Siege with Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. Good movie about terrorists, made even before 9/11.
first...let me say to andrew...not trying to disrespect you or anything...but you go ahead and tell the families who have lost their loved ones that 2000 dead is nothing...ouch...you'd probably get slapped. second...is not really the best country to be helping other countries...shoot...we cant even help ourselves. i mean, someone did mention that we cant even catch criminals here...so why the heck are we out there trying to catch the most wanted man in the world. one more thing...the military's objective has changed so many different times...do you even think the soldiers know why they're even there anymore? we're searching for weapons...we're looking for sadam or some other important guy in terrorism...we're freeing the muslims to democracy...we're doing this and that...which one was it again?
-daniel m-
Post a Comment
<< Home