4,000

Of course, you will.

 

Are we going to invade there next?

 

Good ole Carpro, nothing to say, and he says it so eloquently.

 

Pot? Kettle?

 

I should think you'd be the last guy to pick on people's posting styles. You do a lot of hit & run posting, you don't engage, and never back up what you say. You are among veterans, here, buddy, and should learn from them, if you want to have any respect. There may be a time when you want to be heard, have something great to say, but nobody reads it, because your on everone's ignore list, or something like that.

 

I wondered how long it would be before you and Webdog came to the rescue. :laugh:

 

Don't bet on it Bill. There was talk circulating a few months back (courtesy of some daffy politico), of re-introducing the draft in Canuckland. This was plastered over the local news for several evenings. You can imagine the look of alarm on my 24 year old's face as his father and I tried to explain that he could be drafted whether he liked it or not. Fortunately, it hasn't come to pass (hope it never does!), but if it did, your kid and mine wouldn't be any safer here than there.

Tasmania or Brazil anyone???

 

If the draft was re-enstated the streets would soon be filled with people protesting the dranft and the war and many would be people who now support the war. This was has been fought in a way that has seemingly cost most people nothing. However the costs are there and will come home to haunt us for many years.

 

I have long believed that this is the very reason we don't have 1960s-style protests and demonstrations. If there were a draft, it would be 1968 all over again. But today's war is largely hidden from view or visible, immediate impacts. No flag-draped coffins on TV, no forced millitary service; just hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars wasted. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

You are, sadly, right. The current administration went to great lengths to ensure that pictures of the flag drapped coffins were not shown on nightly TV as they arrived at Dover AFB. This administration has worked hard at hiding the cost of the war.

Check:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-31-casket-usat_x.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE6DD153AF930A15757C0A9629C8B63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Of course, you will.


Yes, I think those who make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom should be noted and honored.

It appears that not every poster feels the same way as I do. That is sad.
--------

Why not post a pole relating to the subject and see if you are correct in your assumption? I'd guess most if not all that have posted would want to honor them no matter what spin is put on it.

My vote is HONOR THEM!

 

Uh huh. Sure. Casualty number "milestones" is what you consider "noting an honoring"?

I don't think so.

You're trying to make a political point.

Shameful.

 

Crowing about casualty milestones in a political context, under the guise of "honoring" the troops, is dishonest and shameful.

It's SOP for liberal anti-war defeatist wackos who would be far happier with a 40,000 figure.

I never thought of you that way. :tonofbricks:

 

Neither do the liberal anti-war defeatist wackos.

It's not necessary in a "Politics" forum.