Quote:
Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Sep 7 2004, 10:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Sep 7 2004, 10:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
The cost to a nation of 300,000,000 is 1000 deaths in a land far away while 16,204, including 11,000 by gunfire, were killed within its own borders.
That's the way I see the comparison. Which is the most potent in the public conciousness?
Maybe I'm looking at irony.
While 1,000 Americans die via gunfire in a faraway land, while that number becomes a significant factor in a presidential election, we can see that 11,000 Americans will also die by gunfire on the homefront, a normal year, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing worth commenting on.
Why wouldn't I consider symbolism elevates one number over the other?
In any event, the 130,000 in Iraq is more like 260,000 since the original group has largely turned over. You might ask the Iraqi Army if they would find that kind of kill ratio acceptable.
Also, if we're picky, the 1000 deaths took place over a year and a half, the equivalent of 24,000 murder victims in the same period in the USA, about 16,500 by gunfire.
Has the geo-political goal been met? Many of you felt only in answering that question could you value the 1000 lives.
Some, like myself, would argue that we can value those lives only five and ten years out when we see where this situation finally plays out. In other words, we can't answer the geo-political question just yet.
In Vietnam, we can look back with the gift of almost 30 years of hindsight and make a good estimate on whether or not 50,000 American lives were lost in vein.
But even there you would still have an argument with some who would insist those soldiers didn't die in vain in the long term picture.
Random thoughts.
Cowperson