Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Because people call it a war and talk about how "expensive" this "war" is, and the incredible casualties of this "war". If you want to call this a war, then you have to acknowledge that compared to other wars, this war has been unbelievably cheap in both terms of US combat deaths and money spent.
The 9-11 attack was one of, if not the worst attacks in the history of the United States (in terms of US civilian casualties caused by a foreign power). Our response, and the concomitant cost in terms of lives and money, has been unbelievably mild.
After Pearl Harbor, which were 2000 mostly military deaths, this country went ballistic, but after 9-11, which was three thousand mostly civilian deaths, this country barely stirred.
If you think the expense or the causalities have been high then you should at least refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East. For a minor military skirmish the cost in blood and treasure might be considered some what high; but not for a war.
|
Personally, I would love to see Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the Republican leadership in general start calling the war in Iraq the "minor inexpensive skirmish in the Middle East." That would do wonders for their credibility.
What's your theory, Spanky, on why they have not adopted this linguistic tactic? Does the liberal media conspiracy exercise mind control over them?
