USA military deaths in Iraq top 1000: AP

[Cowperson]

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

[Lurch]

I think if you want to debate these numbers, you need to add in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, as well as the number of deaths attributable to terrorism. I assume what you are after is some sort of cost benefit exercise, but you are looking only at part of the cost and ignoring the potential benefit. As such, the question becomes "what makes more sense: spending X money and lives in Iraq to protect citizens from foreign versus spending that same X money to improve local law enforcement and social conditions to reduce murder rates"

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 09:07 PM
I think if you want to debate these numbers, you need to add in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, as well as the number of deaths attributable to terrorism. I assume what you are after is some sort of cost benefit exercise, but you are looking only at part of the cost and ignoring the potential benefit. As such, the question becomes "what makes more sense: spending X money and lives in Iraq to protect citizens from foreign versus spending that same X money to improve local law enforcement and social conditions to reduce murder rates"

To quote Mr. Anonymous from an earlier thread, a CIA analyst critical of the Iraq war and the reasons the USA went there:"

I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. . . . . .

. . . . . My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival.

He doesn't agree with the Iraq conflict but he's hardly sympathetic to civilians in other countries in actions where he thinks the USA should be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

Cowperson

[troutman]

duly elected government ?

Now that's a whole new can of worms!

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 08:51 PM
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?

Cowperson

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last bit of your post. Is 1000 deaths too many to further the goals of a nation with a popualtion of 300 million, especially, was you point out, when over 16,000 are outright murdered at home? (A chilling stat, maybe they should do something about those eh? I'll never understand Americans... )

I would have to say no. 1000 deaths is not too many to protect such a large countries interests and safety, and they should be thankful there are young people will to do that job for them.

However, this is assuming the goals of the conflict were met. And here's where the situation gets sticky.

We'll ignore the other ideas and theories of what the true reason for invading Iraq was and just go with the current administrtions boiler plate. To prevent attacks on the U.S. soil (or interests) that would have been encouraged or sponsored by the Iraqi governement through funding or the sale of WMD. To prevent further (assuming you believe they were in IRaq in the first place) terrorism from citizens or groups in Iraq.

It is of my opinion that they have not succeed in this yet. So would 1000 lives be too much to achieve those goals? No. But have the goals been achieved? I don't think so.

We all know that no WMD were found. Some people would have you believe that they were completely destroyed or moved, but given the scale of the program the U.S. insisted they had, that is hard to believe. It is also hard to believe that if U.S. intelligence was good enough to find so called WMD's through satelitte photos, spying and other intelligence, then they wouldn't know about where they were moved to or how they were destroyed. Until there is actual proof, you can write off the whole WMD thing.

The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam is also sketchy at best. And just because I know someone is going to bring it up, harboring one terrorist and giving $25,000 is hardly what I would call a link. $25,000? These operations cost millions and millions of dollars. What's $25,000 going to get you? If that is the best link the U.S. has, that is the reason few people outside the country believe them. Sorry, don't buy it.

But in the largest sense, the goal was to make things safer. So ask yourselves, has this been done? Again, the answer is no. Terrorists flooded into Iraq during the power vacuum. But the strongest case against the safety question is, will it prevent further terrorism?

The way I see it, is the invasion has given a whole new generation of Iraqi's and Middle Eastern muslims to be mad at that States, which in turn feeds the fire for future terrorists. I can't and won't say if they DESERVE to be mad, I'd be pretty thankful to get out of underneath Saddam's boot, but you can't tell me there hasn't been BIG problems caused by the invasion. Yes I know these things take time, governments aren't created over night and many people are trying to disrupt the cause but, holy smokes, it could have been handled better. The world knew that area was prime to fall apart without strong rule because of all the ethnic and spiritual factions living within it. Bush oversimplified the problem and handled it poorly.

The biggest argument against the idea that things are safer or will be safer in the long run are of course the photos taken from the Iraqi prisons. Anyone who thinks that those photos didn't just GUARANTEE 50+ years of new terrorist activity is just fooling themselves.

So would 1000 lives be too many to ensure the safety of a nation? No. Have they insured it though? No. And might they have even made is worse. We will see.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think the 2 stats are comparable at all. It would be like saying; "X number of children die of cancer every year, so why would it matter if I ran one over with my car".

[Flame On]

I don't think it's symbolic, more of a testiment to the other death rates, be they from crime, health etc. As for the loss of life in persuing goals?
Well it depends on the goals, if it's to stop the nazi's a large figure is understandable. If there's quite a lot of speculation as to the validity of a war, and/or it's merrits, then 1000 might be high. I think the US seems more or less split 50/50 on the current campaign in terms of support so perhaps that's an issue.

[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.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 7 2004, 03:46 PM
I don't think the 2 stats are comparable at all. It would be like saying; "X number of children die of cancer every year, so why would it matter if I ran one over with my car".

Brilliant bloody quote!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 7 2004, 09:23 PM
duly elected government ?

Now that's a whole new can of worms!

Not if you read and respect the United States Constitution....of course, what would you guys know about duly elected government? How many of you had a say in who your Prime Minister is?

[Lurch]

How many of you had a say in who your Prime Minister is?

Pardon me??

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 11:19 PM

Pardon me??

Did you get to vote for Prime Minister?

[calf]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 11:19 PM

Pardon me??

Did you get to vote for Prime Minister? [/b][/quote]
In short: yes we did.

You know going into an election who the leader of the various parties are, thus vote for the MP in the party you want to gain power (thereby voting for the prime minister).

Obviously, there were more people who wanted a Liberal government than people who wanted Conservative, or people who wanted Bloc, NDP, Green, etc. Since they won the most seats. It's the way our consitution's set out.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:31 PM

In short: yes we did.

You know going into an election who the leader of the various parties are, thus vote for the MP in the party you want to gain power (thereby voting for the prime minister).

So you vote for a political party, not a candidate.

I can vote for a Democrat for the Senate, a Republican for Congress and Ralph Nader for President.

[calf]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:31 PM

In short: yes we did.

You know going into an election who the leader of the various parties are, thus vote for the MP in the party you want to gain power (thereby voting for the prime minister).

So you vote for a political party, not a candidate.

I can vote for a Democrat for the Senate, a Republican for Congress and Ralph Nader for President. [/b][/quote]
I vote for a MP in a political party, but essentially yes, one votes for a party, knowing who would be in power if that party would win.

Different systems for different countries.

[Lurch]

Did you get to vote for Rummy and his crew? Does structure really make a big difference, i.e. what aspects of government are elected versus which are appointed?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:34 PM

I vote for a MP in a political party, but essentially yes, one votes for a party.

Different systems for different countries.

Thank you...then troutman has no business making snide remarks about 'duly electing' officials in the USA when the PM of Canada is not duly elected.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 11:35 PM
Did you get to vote for Rummy and his crew? Does structure really make a big difference, i.e. what aspects of government are elected versus which are appointed?

No, I didn't get to vote for Rumsfeld. The President appoints his cabinet. Stucture makes a huge difference to me. I get to vote for people, not philosophies. The person is more important....one can have the philosophy that suits me, but if he's a pile of dung as a person I'm not voiting for him. You guys have no choice.

[calf]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:34 PM

I vote for a MP in a political party, but essentially yes, one votes for a party.

Different systems for different countries.

Thank you...then troutman has no business making snide remarks about 'duly electing' officials in the USA when the PM of Canada is not duly elected. [/b][/quote]
I guess so. I'd be one to say that our PM was duly elected, just as GW was duly elected (assuming the election was run fairly in Florida...but that can of worms has been opened plenty enough )

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:34 PM

I vote for a MP in a political party, but essentially yes, one votes for a party.

Different systems for different countries.

Thank you...then troutman has no business making snide remarks about 'duly electing' officials in the USA when the PM of Canada is not duly elected. [/b][/quote]
I don't think he's questioning the constitutional process.... he's questioning the legitimacy of what went on in Florida. No matter what the courts said, there will always be questions about the voting irregularities in that state, and he's got a right to raise them.

(Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, Troutman)