USA military deaths in Iraq top 1000: AP

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 7 2004, 11:38 PM

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 )

I wonder if the election in New Mexico (democratic governor) was run fairly where Bush lost to Gore by less votes than he beat him with in Florida. Just as much reason to assume the Dems were tainting election results as there is to assume the GOP was....but nobody wants to talk about that. It's Bush we're talking about...because Bush is bad....remember?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 7 2004, 11:38 PM

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)

Fair enough. I, then, question the legitimacy of what went on in New Mexico....the state that made Florida an issue in the first place.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 05:35 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?

On a related note...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106175/

It's funny. Richard Perle (yeah, that Richard Perle) has been busy ripping off Conrad Black when he's not cheering for an invasion of Iraq.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Sep 7 2004, 11:38 PM

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)

Fair enough. I, then, question the legitimacy of what went on in New Mexico....the state that made Florida an issue in the first place. [/b][/quote]
NM with 5 electoral votes was irrelevant in the end; whoever won Florida, with 25 electoral votes, won the election... no? You could swing NM over to Bush and he still would have needed Florida.

(Sorry to continue participating in the thread hijack)

[Cowperson]

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

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 02:51 PM
"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? "

I think military casualties are a big deal because they're usually preventable. Not in the sense that the exact situation they are in is avoidable (a grenade going off right next to you, etc), but that the country(s) involved in the conflict usually have a choice of whether or not to be involved. So by not even getting involved, all casualties associated with that conflict are avoided.

In the case of Iraq, it's significant because many people think the USA shouldn't be there in the first place. Many people also question what these soldiers are dieing for as well.

Someone posted above questioning the number of civilian deaths. http://www.iraqbodycount.net lists them at between about 11 500 and 14 000. Before you question the source, this site is widely quoted and used in the media (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/coverage.php) and it gathers it's information from various sources around the world...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 7 2004, 11:51 PM
NM with 5 electoral votes was irrelevant in the end; whoever won Florida, with 25 electoral votes, won the election... no? You could swing NM over to Bush and he still would have needed Florida.

(Sorry to continue participating in the thread hijack)

Doesn't matter. Florida's results made whatever happened in New Mexico irrelevant. That's my point (poorly illustrated after re-reading my post). If Bush loses Florida are we hearing the same things about the dems 'stealing' the election in Florida and New Mexico or is this kind of tomfoolery reserved for evil republicans only?

[Cowperson]

The first of what will undoubtedly be many introspectives from the media, reminding us the 1000 were once individuals.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/...n.ap/index.html

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

An ironic fact: The pilot that landed George W. Bush on that aircraft carrier so Bush could proclaim the end of major combat in Iraq, died in Iraq a few days ago. Seemed like a good pilot. Sorry to see people like this go.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=107...5&PAG=461&rfi=9

I wonder, will the mark of 1000 deaths affect the election at all? I remember some talk a few months back about how the death toll could reach 1000 right around election time and that could effect some votes...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 05:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
Wow, I can't beleive someone from the US is bitching about how we don't get to vote for your PM. Well guess what, less than 50% of people in the US voted for Bush. Does that mean he's not duly elected?

It's the way our systems work. God I hate to get all anti american, but it's that kind of ignoracne that p*sses off a good chunk of the world. Basically saying "Our system is way better than yours" without even thinking about it.

Sure someone made a stupid comment, but attack the comment, not the system of government he lives under.

Edit: didn't read the whole thread when I posted, and didn't see your respones, but I stand by my post.

[Cowperson]

A list of the dead and how they died (at ABC News, a government controlled mainstream media by the way)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Primetim...Casualties.html

And GW Bush with comments today on the fallen 1000 and a month by month chart.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3638496.stm

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Sep 8 2004, 02:37 PM

Wow, I can't beleive someone from the US is bitching about how we don't get to vote for your PM. Well guess what, less than 50% of people in the US voted for Bush. Does that mean he's not duly elected?

It's the way our systems work. God I hate to get all anti american, but it's that kind of ignoracne that p*sses off a good chunk of the world. Basically saying "Our system is way better than yours" without even thinking about it.

Sure someone made a stupid comment, but attack the comment, not the system of government he lives under.

Edit: didn't read the whole thread when I posted, and didn't see your respones, but I stand by my post.

I was attacking the comment.

I didn't say once that our system was better than yours.

But don't talk to me about duly elected leaders when your own country doesn't have them.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from extrapolating my comments to meet your misplaced anger.

There was ZERO ignorance on my part.

[Cowperson]

The New York Times today goes one step further, a large supplement with head and shoulder pictures of each of the 1000 dead USA soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/natio...x_PICTURES.html

One of the psychological turning points in the Vietnam War, termed a cheap psychological trick by pro-war activists, was LIFE Magazine in 1969 publishing in similar fashion the head and shoulder pictures of 242 Americans killed in action in one average WEEK in Vietnam. The article was titled: "One Weeks Dead."

On 27 June, 1969, Life magazine displayed portrait photos of all 242 Americans killed in Vietnam during the previous week, including the 46 killed at 'Hamburger Hill'. The impact of these photos, and some of the faces behind the numbers, stunned Americans and increased anti-war sentiment in the country.

Will something like the New York Times account today have a similar impact?

You may have to register to view the Times story.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 9 2004, 03:28 PM
The New York Times today goes one step further, a large supplement with head and shoulder pictures of each of the 1000 dead USA soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/natio...x_PICTURES.html

One of the psychological turning points in the Vietnam War, termed a cheap psychological trick by pro-war activists, was LIFE Magazine in 1969 publishing in similar fashion the head and shoulder pictures of 242 Americans killed in action in one average WEEK in Vietnam. The article was titled: "One Weeks Dead."

On 27 June, 1969, Life magazine displayed portrait photos of all 242 Americans killed in Vietnam during the previous week, including the 46 killed at 'Hamburger Hill'. The impact of these photos, and some of the faces behind the numbers, stunned Americans and increased anti-war sentiment in the country.

Will something like the New York Times account today have a similar impact?

You may have to register to view the Times story.

Cowperson

It's interesting cause either people are more used to war and the resulting casualties, or they really think the war is worth it. Which means somehow, Communism is less of a threat than an arguable terror threat.
It is a far younger campaign too. If this went on for another few years into the next Bush admin, there might be some pretty heavy cries for his TX head!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 9 2004, 03:45 PM
It's interesting cause either people are more used to war and the resulting casualties, or they really think the war is worth it. Which means somehow, Communism is less of a threat than an arguable terror threat.

I posted a story earlier in the week which indicated terrorists are looking at more outlandish crimes, like the Breslan, Russia massacre, because its become more difficult to shock western audiences to get attention.

A few television news outlets - including CNN - today using the New York Times spread of head and shoulder pictures to illustrate lengthy pieces on the makeup of the American dead.

396 were fathers. Roughly four were mothers.

17 died from drowning.

26 suicides.

About 50 died in traffic accidents.

Etc, etc.

And yes, there is a large swath of people who feel the current fight - whether you disagree Iraq should be part of it - is the biggest this generation will face just as the previous generations faced down Communism and facism. Now . . . . some would argue that's a stretch.

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 9 2004, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 9 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Sep 9 2004, 03:45 PM
It's interesting cause either people are more used to war and the resulting casualties, or they really think the war is worth it.# Which means somehow, Communism is less of a threat than an arguable terror threat.

I posted a story earlier in the week which indicated terrorists are looking at more outlandish crimes, like the Breslan, Russia massacre, because its become more difficult to shock western audiences to get attention.

A few television news outlets - including CNN - today using the New York Times spread of head and shoulder pictures to illustrate lengthy pieces on the makeup of the American dead.

396 were fathers. Roughly four were mothers.

17 died from drowning.

26 suicides.

About 50 died in traffic accidents.

Etc, etc.

And yes, there is a large swath of people who feel the current fight - whether you disagree Iraq should be part of it - is the biggest this generation will face just as the previous generations faced down Communism and facism. Now . . . . some would argue that's a stretch.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
The big difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is that there is no longer an American draft. Nobody is forced to go to Iraq so I don't see this New York Times spread bringing as big as a reaction. The draft brought the good possibility that each young man could be next. It became a lot more personal.