Is the US getting soft?

DASHLOC4ever

Yes Bin Laden himself said as soon as we sent home a few body bags the USA would turn and run. I am afraid; thanks to the Democrats and weak Republicans he was right.

canx_mp058

There is another factor too.

Don't get me wrong - I am not minimizing the tragedy of soldiers killed in war - but every death seems to be splashed on the headlines as if something new is happening that has never happened before - soldiers are dying in war! - I know that each death is a great sorrow to the family and loved ones involved, but it is funny in its own way in how it is being presented, simply because it is ludicrous when you really think about it.

This is because the elites in the media are doing their best to turn public support against the war, which is necessary to fight an Islamism whose essential aim is to enslave the whole world under sharia law (notice how in the media, Islamic civilization and culture is presented in such an attractive way, as Christianity at the same time is trashed? If you look at history and Islam with its jihads, it was far more violent and unjust than anything that Christianity ever did) - if we pull out of Iraq, our enemies would be emboldened, as well as all enemies of the civilized order (such as the communists which are now in the process of the take-over of South America, led by Chavez and his thugs shutting down anything that is opposed to him, under the tutlage of the communist tyrant Castro), in which they would understand that the US and her alllies have no will to oppose them, which would mean there goes the world.

The media does this by selective reporting, focusing on the costs and casulties of the war, but ignoring the victories and achievements of the soldiers of that campaign.

If the media that we have today, with the agenda we have today, were in WWII, all public support would have been lost for the US involvement there, thus not making it possible for Hitler's defeat (although England did play an essential role in defeating Hitler, the role of the US was also essental).

We are fighting a real world war here, and it is essential for an effective fighting force for this end that it have the support of the public - this precisely, is what the media is trying their best to undermine.

.

ldscows

As long as our political aspirants rely on responding to polls rather than providing leadership we will continue to get softer and softer. We have not entered a conflict with the intention of winning since World War II with the exception of Reagan's response to the Cold War. "We win, they loose." and it happened. The current crop of Democratic candidates are prime examples of poll followers, not leaders. Their delay in funding our troops is nothing short of treason.

Tha Stew

ive said it for a long time.. do it right the first time and well be done with it.. but the leaders are too political

snickers

Because the US for the most part is anti war....and yes this softness is gonna cost us as Bin Laden has stated so many times...God Bless us all!

hemihead_38

Because for those kinds of numbers you would have to start a draft again then all the Babyboomer Mommies and Daddies would cry more than they are now. Yes , this generation that is running this country now is very very soft.Raising even weaker kids. This generation is the same cowards who protested Vietnam because they were to gutless to fight for their country.
The same Cut and Run motto.

anton_29207

WW2 was a real bonified war, where all the farm boys across the US were drafted, allowing the US to build up that kind of numbers. This is only a police action where we have to keep up with those who have bravely volunteered. If the democrats ever stop using this war as a campaign plot and actually let our men get the job done, we can actually win.

amiram a

The US was always soft, and is also becoming fat, but don't compare the Iraq war with WWII. this is an extended police operation and WWII was a war for the survival of the free world.

JOHN D

Because the objective in Iraq is to have military instalments and control the air space which does not require millions of troops.

Michael N

Maybe we are trying not to get a whole lot of people killed.
No really think about something. As high tech. as the machines of modern war have became do you think we really need to flood the country with people?

beasties70

Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

User103443

People are protesting the amount of troops we have there now, do you really think the American people would have supported sending millions? The World Wars were completely different situations, we were actually fighting for the existence of free society and ultimately our country's own existence.

le VicSter

The US hasn't gotten soft.

The only people who have a say on how many troops are deployed into that area, is the President and the big wig military commanders and generals that sit at their big comfy desks in the Pentagon.

Why don't you take it up with those fools.

ALbert B

I don't think the US has gotten soft at all

the situation is different in iraq and there is no real need to flood the country with troops... they really have sent in enough - technology in weapons is a lot more advanced....

these troops can do more damage (if they wanted to that is...) than all the troops in WW2..

they were facing a lot more troops from the enemy and also the enemy were using stand up tactics not guerilla warfare as they cannot hope to stand up to even the limited (in comparison to numbers in the second ww...) numbers that are arrayed against them....

David

ah you mean to kill more innocent people by making an impact?

MissKittyInTheCity

The military leaders requested more soldiers in the beginning and through out this campaign. It was the "wise old owls" in Dubya's cabinet who convinced him it was not necessary. Interesting since Cheney and many of them did not serve but used deferments.

Redhead

Maybe because Bush and Blair knew there were no weapons or mass destruction after all

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: