by dotSomething

Created on: May 27, 2007   Last Updated: June 01, 2007

More than 100 American journalists, more than 850 American contract mercenaries, more than 1,000 American aid workers and public contractors, and more than 3,400 American soldiers have already diedand more than 51,000 American soldiers and civilians have sustained mental and physical handicaps that will likely affect them for the rest of their lives; our family, friends, and neighbors, over in a distant land they ought not be. These aren't numbersthese are people.

As a nation, we came together in sorrow and anger when 2,979 people tragically lost their lives during the September 11th, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.
Yet what about the Americans who have died in Iraq since thena number which far exceeds the number of casualties sustained on 9/11? These aren't people who died as a result of a terrorist attack on a civilian target on our homeland, but just as tragically, they are lives which have been lost because they were blithely put on the frontline of danger in a political red herring; a line of danger in front of which they didn't belong. A deadly battlefield that serves no purpose or benefit to our country and one that has only brought unfathomable instability, lawlessness, and pain that didn't exist before; one which has bred both terrorism and anti-American sentiment, resulting in the world being a much more dangerous place for generations to come.

Why are we not as incensed by the tragic deaths of even more Americans, who continue to die in the shadow of 9/11, yet for reasons having nothing to do with legacy of 9/11?

And for what? It seems each week we are told that it is in support of a different reason, probably because each previous reason was based more on spin, than foundation. Did we attack Iraq because they trained and funded those who attacked us on 9/11? No, that was the Saudi Arabians. Did we attack Iraq because they were building and storing Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, that was North Korea and Iran. Did we do it to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq? How about to bring stability and peace to Iraq? Nope, try again. How about to get oil to pay for the war, to help rebuild Iraq, and provide us with access an inexpensive source of crude oil? No, nope, and negative.

Sadly, the most common reason used for why we are still in Iraq is to "support of our troops," which is a slap in the face to our troops; and each time it is used, it discounts the risk and responsibility our soldiers are shouldering every day. It's a statement which takes their

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>