Hey dont let it get you down elucidator.
Think of all those contracts that will go to US companies to fix the mess up over there. Those contracts will be a great source of revenue now that Iraq is allowed to export to full production to pay for it.
That revenue will surely offset a bit of the expense. So it’s not all that bad.
Some people raising these concerns are veterans of WWII, the Korean conflict and Vietnam. I think it’s safe to bet that they realize and understand how the number of casualties stack up.
Price is only meaningful in relation to the value of what is purchased. If there is no genuine benefit to the US, then the loss of a little pinky toe to this war is too high.
This war was much more of an elective war than either of the two examples you mention.
The threat to the US from Iraq was hypothetical.
This is worth the American lives we’re spending in Iraq because…
And we had to invade in such a hurry because…
So, I’ve got a few questions for those who are terribly concerned about the number of US deaths since May 1:
My guess is that the number of deaths per capita, per day, for soldiers in Iraq is lower than the number of deaths per capita, per day in most major US cities, for the same age group, and only marginally higher than the number of deaths per capita, per day for military units that aren’t in combat. Anyone care to prove me right or wrong?
I’m not trying to trivialize these deaths, but they should be put in context. However, I suspect that the demagogues have no interest in context if they can score political points against a president for whom they have an irrational hate.
Simon, you raise several valid questions, all suitable for “Great Debates.” I have opinions, some only half-baked, on all of them but – in all honesty – I don’t want to state any of them; this thread has sucked away more time than I care to give as it is.
The only point I do want to defend (because I do feel strongly about it) is that, once you’ve commited to this war (and it seems we have), casualties are acceptable because 1. they are to be expected and 2. they are still low.
That’s really all my point comes down to. Poking me with emotional barbs or trying to extrapolate my stance into bigger, weightier debates are just distractions.
From the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense:
From October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1996 (17 years):
Total active duty non-combat deaths…….29,911 (1,760/year)
……….Accidents…….….18,179 (1.069/year)
……….Illness………………5,497 (323/year)
……….Suicide………………4,090 (241/year)
……….Homicide…….……1,693 (100/year)
……….Undetermined………452 (27/year)
During this period there were 558 combat deaths (33/year) (This includes terrorist incidents).
Of the 18,179 accidental deaths 6,790 occurred between 1988 and 1996 (754/year). Of these:
………2,092 were on-duty (232/year)
………4,698 were off-duty (522/year) of which 3,788 (421/year) involved cars (pedestrians are included here).
haha!
this ones cute:
Speaks volumes.
Murder of civilians, I can understand. But… STEALING?
No, I’m merely predicting the weasley behavior of the Republican Party, who consider everything to be a political football against their opponents. Or did we forget about the “independent” Whitewater “investigation” already?
Do you have any cites for this undeniable fact?
I see that JonBodner questions and zigaretten information went nearly unnoticed (despite being, you know, relevant, to the OP) in the general (and sadly all too frequent) US/Bush bashing feeding frenzy. After being on this board for a while, this comes as no surprise. Why dig into an interesting area of the debate when you can just rant on?
The point they were trying to make, which was also on my mind as I read through the general rants, and which is actually relevant to the OP is: Is it more dangerous or less dangerous to be posted in Iraq today (or Afganistan) than to simply be in the military?
Being in the military is a dangerous business (I know, I was in). Even without a war, people die quite often in the military. Hell, even being a civilian, people die every day in car accidents. Anyone have any stats on deaths per 100,000 due to car accidents in the time period we are talking about? How about deaths in the civilian population at large per 100,000 in the time we are talking about?
From Collounsbury
This is harsh…but I tend to agree with it. Its always a tradegy to lose a family member to war. I’m not trying to make light of that. But more disturbing to me is the seeming inability of the administration to put together a coherent plan in either Iraq or Afganistan…not the losses of our troops, per se.
The other thing I would have to agree with in Collounsbury post is, we are there now. Right or wrong, its too late to change that. Running away from the problem is not the answer. Endless rants about how the war was wrong, we should never have gone, etc etc, aren’t going to help (unless some of you bozos have a convient time machine so we can go back and change the past). Its over and done folks…the war HAPPENED. What we need NOW is for people to address the REAL problem…namely the fact that the administration seemingly wouldn’t know a solution to its myriad problems in Iraq/Afganistan if it bit them on the ass. And we NEED to find those solutions, and soon.
-XT
xtism->
Well, GWB can’t agree with you more:
As long as there’s still a chance to pump free oil for the occupation to self-finance, the administration is more than willing to take the occasional soldier shot in the neck, the killing of the occasional group of protesting iraqis, etc.
Hell! do you know how many people die worldwide in traffic accidents alone!? I tell you, it’s a lot more the meager “drip-drop” in Iraq. So what if the country’s been bombed back to pre-history, the medical assistance is dismal, water is polluted, no electricity in weeks, etc.? Thousands of people die in China daily for various motives. So there!
ChaosGod
Um, right. What ever you are smoking, please pass it to me…I could use a hit about right now. I really hadn’t realized the country had been bombed back into pre-history. Don’t mind those gentlemen coming up behind you in white suits Chaos…they are just being friendly and want to fit you for a new vest with matching sleeves…
Reguards with a wink ;),
XT
A better question is this; quick, now, without look it up on Yahoo, give me the name of any of the soldiers who have died since the “war” was declared somewhat over ::sound of lone dog barking in distance, tumbleweed rolls by::
Does it strike anyone the least bit odd that we are no longer hearing the word ‘hero’ bandied about and cheapened; that we no longer are seeing agonizing closeups of grieving family members; that we are no longer seeing in-depth interviews with the victim’s mailman on “Today”?
America’s attention span has waned, and soon the history that is presently being extensively revised will be used to assault yet another evildoer. The answer to the question of ‘why’ implied above is that it is no longer politically expedient to canonize our fighting men and women. Truth is, the earlier deaths were no more meaningful than the current ones, the pain no less for the survivors. For George Bush, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and the other flying monkeys of this administration, the means more than justified the end, the full scope of which has not yet been revealed. But I do go on…
It is getting worse as the days go by and today the news mentioned some newly organized resistance movement in Iraq. The fact that there are several attacks on US forces daily and that they most often cause the US forces to fire back and end killing civilians is a bad recipe for any progress. US forces will have to get tougher in their approach with the the local population and this will lead to greater resentment. It is a catch-22 and impossible to win. At the same time, as has been said, the USA cannot just pull out now. It is tough shit with no way out.
I think this article by Stan Goff may shed light on the discussion. Sorry I couldn’t link it, so I’m quoting it in full…
[Article edited down due to copyright concerns. Please do not post large sections of copyrighted articles…post links and brief excerpts only. --Gaudere]
Lightkeeper, posting whole articles is not allowed but I found the article here.
You do know that Stan Goff is a left-wing nut who believes that Bush arranged the 9/11 tragedy in order to corner the world oil market, don’t you?
Not that it necessarily invalidates what he wrote in the article. I mean, the wackiest nut-job moron could say that water is wet and that wouldn’t make it false.
You’re right with respect to statements of fact. If he says that the weapons weigh seven pounds, then I believe him.
It’s his ability to draw a rational conclusion from those facts that I question. So when he says, and this is the whole point of the article, that the troops must be getting demoralized already, I’m not inclined to give a damn what he thinks.