"This war's odds are massively in our favor: what, 3,000, 4,000 of them and two of our guys? I doubt history has ever seen a conflict in which one side lost so few."Yep, you're right on there.
I still don't get why redcloak thinks it's "wrong" to pause and express sadness over the death of one of our men...especially when we know that WE could be the next of kin called by the military next time.
Why is it that to foreigners, we're blustering and insensitive when we express a heartfelt wish to kill these people in return for the death they dealt to us...but we's "pantywaists" [sic] when we express sadness over one of our own?
We're d@mned if we do, and d@mned of we don't.
"We, the unwilling, are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful, with nothing"
Bless all of our boys. Be assured, redcloak, that we will stop and mourn. Then we will avenge this death a hundredfold. Have a nice day.
Just curious, did we "pause and express sadness" each and every time a soldier was killed during WWII? That would have made for a lot of pausing. I don't see how we could have done much fighting with all of that pausing. But then again, perhaps that generation accepted death in combat as one of those things that happens during a war. Perhaps they didn't turn each and every casualty into a national headline. They won as I recall.
It should be a matter of rejoicing that we have not lost many men. But of course, it is our duty to honor those, however few, that fall in service to their country. I'm sure it was not an honor they looked for, to be the few to die in this war, but it is one they should have.