[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 02:51 PM
Associated Press figures show USA military deaths in Iraq have topped 1,000, including 998 military personnel and three Pentagon contractors.

The number includes accidental as well as combat deaths.

Will all due respect to the families, I'll ask a question of the panel:

"Is the 1000 number largely a politically symbolic one given 16,204 Americans were murdered within the borders of the USA in 2002, a single, average year for that country, more than 11,000 felled by gunfire or eleven times the number who died in Iraq? "

Is it fair to make that contrast? Is this a big deal or a symbolically big deal?

Secondly, what price does a nation of 300 million, which suffered 50,000 dead in Vietnam, pay as it pursues its geo-political goals which its duly elected government considers to be in the best interests of its citizenry?

Debate!!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040907_992.html

Cowperson

I see where you are going but comparing the 100 deaths in Iraq to the 16000 Murders in the USA are not really good comparisons.

It's tough to compare 16000 murders in a country of 300,000,000 people compared to 1000 deaths of soldiers, unless there are 18.75 Million soldiers in Iraq. Sure, if there are close to 20 million soldiers then 1000 deaths sounds like they are doing a pretty good job. But what is the real number? what if there are 1 million troops, or 100 000?

I understand that they are really only using 1000 because it is a nice round number (hence a good milestone), but I'm sure when you put it in the context of the number of soldiers there, it looks a lot worse. Maybe not compared to conflicts of old (I'm sure WWII had a much higher casualty rate), but by today's standards 1 in 100 soldiers dying is not acceptable, especially since technically "The War" has been over for quite some time.