Quote:
Originally posted by legion
kach22i, if the media had reported the same way it does now during World War II, we would have all become immensely demoralized and probably would not have lasted the first year of the war. Look at some of the single-battle casualties we suffered in what were widely proclaimed as victories... In some cases we lost 20,000 troops in a single day in a single battle, but the media at the time would also report that the other side lost 50,000. (Notice that we only hear about U.S. casualties in Iraq).
I can't wait 'til the Baby Boomers are retired and we finally stop re-fighting Vietnam.
|
Yeah, and if Iraq had destroyed the WTC, then we'd all be behind this so-called "war." I think I can speak for the vast majority of my liberal friends when I say that if ANYBODY attacked the US, we're supportive of any rational strategy to destroy those enemies. But again, Iraq did not attack the US, Osama Bin Laden did. But instead of focusing on destroying that enemy, your fabulous "president" has chosen instead to withdraw significant resources from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden and his cronies, and turn everyone's attention to occupying a sovereign nation that probably hated Bin Laden as much as we do. It's the shell game, and you guys are swallowing the hook.