|
Post by Jaga on Feb 22, 2006 20:02:18 GMT -7
On August 26, 2003, Hume conjured up a bizarre mathematical formula to show that U.S. casualties were not a big deal: "Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2,300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day." Hume's geographic comparison was meaningless, since the total population of California is far greater than the number of U.S. troops in Iraq--approximately 240 times greater. If Californians were being killed at the same rate that Hume cited for U.S. soldiers, there would be more than 400 murders per day, not six. When Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz (9/8/03) asked Hume about that, Hume said: "Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something." www.fair.org/index.php?page=2706
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Feb 22, 2006 20:07:44 GMT -7
By the way the number of 9-11 victims stands now at: 2,752
Number of bodies discovered after Katrina: over 1,300
(Figures released in recent days put the Louisiana death toll at 1,076, up two from last week. In Mississippi, Katrina killed 228 people.)
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Feb 23, 2006 2:06:50 GMT -7
Jaga You should never believe implicitly masses of statistics - figures are so easily manipulated. And I should know as for a long time, some time ago, I was a provider of masses of statistics! Sir Leslie, KHCB
|
|
piwo
Citizen of the World
Co Słychać?
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by piwo on Feb 23, 2006 7:50:28 GMT -7
You sound like a broken record Jaga. Statistically, negligible. On an emotional, humanistic and spiritual level, significant. But then again, how significant anything is, is directly proportioned to your emotional attachment to the topic, either positive or negative. That you don't believe in the cause drives you to write the same post time after time. So I'll do the same: thank God the world didn't feel the way you did when Poland was the Nazi's playground. There were times when we were losing 3,000 men a day, and if everyone insisted on the tone that you do now, I wonder if we would have ever stayed the course. Or anyone else in the cuase for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Feb 23, 2006 18:42:26 GMT -7
This Iraq thing is becoming to much, this for sure! Each day is a new number, same thing with a little bit higher casualty list announced.
It is all so depressing, in my minds eye, it is another young man killed in war as an individual. I have little use for numbers as death has no favourites; for it takes what and when it can as like a hungry monster. Make no mistake about it, war is a death hungry monster.
This young men are fighting for what they believe in, and also because their country sent them as combat solders. I have never heard of any shirkers for as long as this war has gone on. For all that these young men have endured and fought. My sincere heartfelt thanks are to them.
Charles
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Feb 24, 2006 1:55:30 GMT -7
The 2,000 dead soldiers in Iraq get a lot of headlines, but few pay attention to the 2,700 dead in the twin towers. Both are pretty small numbers when compared to the price of freedom. I am surprised Americans were so quick to buy into allowing internal spying, the “Patriot Act”, and giving up their domestic freedoms to avoid another 2,700 in some future incident. Freedom is not free, yet Americans are not willing to pay the price to remain free.
They are willing to pay 2,000 in Bush's adventure in Iraq, which had nothing to do with a war on terrorism and a lot to do with generating more terrorists in the world. It is a crazy set of values today.
Kai
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Feb 24, 2006 9:40:12 GMT -7
+++The 2,000 dead soldiers in Iraq get a lot of headlines, but few pay attention to the 2,700 dead in the twin towers.+++
no, this is just the opposite. The twin towers + airplanes+ Pentagon deaths were originally estimated at 5,000. Many people are not aware that in reality this was less than 3,000. The families of these people received plenty of money. I do not believe that the families of the soldiers did.
+++thank God the world didn't feel the way you did when Poland was the Nazi's playground++
Piwo, WW II was a REAL WAR, Iraq war was under FALSE PRETENSES. According to Bush - there are at least 20-30 thousands IRAQIS among them many civilians, children etc who died. Can you justify these deaths as well as the loss of money and now.... the civil war is very plausible.
|
|
piwo
Citizen of the World
Co Słychać?
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by piwo on Feb 24, 2006 16:07:06 GMT -7
+++The 2,000 dead soldiers in Iraq get a lot of headlines, but few pay attention to the 2,700 dead in the twin towers.+++ no, this is just the opposite. The twin towers + airplanes+ Pentagon deaths were originally estimated at 5,000. Many people are not aware that in reality this was less than 3,000. The families of these people received plenty of money. I do not believe that the families of the soldiers did. +++thank God the world didn't feel the way you did when Poland was the Nazi's playground++ Piwo, WW II was a REAL WAR, Iraq war was under FALSE PRETENSES. According to Bush - there are at least 20-30 thousands IRAQIS among them many civilians, children etc who died. Can you justify these deaths as well as the loss of money and now.... the civil war is very plausible. And so now you define whether something is a war or not based on if you like it or not? Pssst.. got a secret.. .lots of civilians died int WW1, WW11, and every war before and after. Even heard there was one or two in Poland killed in WWll, but perhaps that was just idle rumor... We'll continue to be there, the count will continue to rise, until one of two things happen: 1) the 74% who voted and bought into the system (making USA's elections look like a joke for lack of participation, as well as other "democracies") unite to form a committed government and restore order, or 2) outright Civil War erupts and cannot be quickly brought into check (as is happening right now). Then, and only when one of these wins out from the other will, or SHOULD our troops come home. And while I hope it's the former, I'm at the point were I'm becoming ambivalent which occurs, as long as one happens quickly. Yes, civil war is now quite a real possibility. There is a certain "crap shoot" factor when one commits troops. Bubba Clinton's excursions still have troops in the field, as does George Bush's. One believed a liberated Iraq majority, especially with buy-in from the Kurds would be able to instill order and stability. The people have proven they are behind the concept by their overwhelming support in the political process, but the dark side is well armed, well connected, has the stone age "killem in the name of Islam" crap energizing the witless masses who just wanna kill somebody, preferably the "great Satin", and with open borders open to those who do not wish to see a stable Iraq. Make no mistake, I'm not terribly happy we're there, but thats not what this is all about. Fact is, we are there, and history will capture how unjust this excursion was, and those responsible will be judged based on it, and not partisan rhetoric on either side. It's a tall order. If it fails, it will be a tragedy since the masses in Iraq are behind the overall process. I've talked with soldiers who were there that say things are not as they are presented on the TV: that there are more positive, kind, and appreciative people then what's presented to us here. They continue to say it is still a dangerous place for certain. I'm sure every liberal in the USA wishes it to fail miserably and the suffering to continue, because otherwise they would be eating a little crow, and I'm told it is not that tasty, even with copious amounts of garlic. So let's all insist the work there ends before the natural order, good or bad, materializes: lest something positive be given the chance to develop!
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Feb 25, 2006 18:48:03 GMT -7
Piwo,
yes, lots of civilians died in WW II but before AMerica joined the coalition almost all Europe was occupied by Hitler already. Nothing like that happened in Iraq. Yes, Saddam tried earlier to conquer the neighbors but his powers were taken away from him 10 years prior.
+++I'm sure every liberal in the USA wishes it to fail miserably and the suffering to continue+++ I am not a liberal. Who for you is a liberal? According to the encyclopedia definitions liberal is a supporter of the free capitalism
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Mar 2, 2006 21:26:01 GMT -7
After 10 yrs. we still have troops in the Balkens. BTW I saw no Serbian solder cross my front lawn nor did any Serbian solder land on any of our beaches nor did they cross our Sourthern or Northern border. I guess it is alright for a Liberal to kill innocent civilians, drop bombs on their cities and destroy their infrastructer but critism comes up when a Conservative takes a REAL fight to the enemy. America had no reason to go into Serbia and the problem should have been handled by the residents of the Balkens themselves or, if the situation required, by the Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Mar 3, 2006 8:51:43 GMT -7
After 10 yrs. we still have troops in the Balkens. BTW I saw no Serbian solder cross my front lawn nor did any Serbian solder land on any of our beaches nor did they cross our Sourthern or Northern border. I guess it is alright for a Liberal to kill innocent civilians, drop bombs on their cities and destroy their infrastructer but critism comes up when a Conservative takes a REAL fight to the enemy. America had no reason to go into Serbia and the problem should have been handled by the residents of the Balkens themselves or, if the situation required, by the Europeans. Bob, how much money was spend for Balkan war? How much money was spend for Iraq? How many Am. soldiers are there in Balkan, how many Am. soldiers were killed in Balkan compared to Iraq? Going to Balkan was done for some reasons and it was done as NATO action. So, America had support for this action.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Mar 3, 2006 11:10:34 GMT -7
Piwo, yes, lots of civilians died in WW II but before AMerica joined the coalition almost all Europe was occupied by Hitler already. Nothing like that happened in Iraq. Yes, Saddam tried earlier to conquer the neighbors but his powers were taken away from him 10 years prior. +++I'm sure every liberal in the USA wishes it to fail miserably and the suffering to continue+++
;D The encyclopedia defination does not describe the AMERICAN LIBERAL. Today's American Liberal is more defined to be like the National Socialist Party that ruled Germany from the middle 1930's to the middle of the 1940's. Sadman Hussein and his Party defied and ignored all the resolutions of the United Nations. But what is it to be? All of the UN's resolutions are made just to be ignored? OH! I get it, the difference between Yugoslavia and Hussein was that Hussein was paying out bribes and Yugoslavia was not. Yugoslavia did not attack America and it did not envade any signees to NATO so there was no reason for NATO to attack Yugoslavia. Why are we still wasting money in that country after all these years? I get it! When Serbia starts paying bribes to France, Germany and the UN, there will be a call for pullout.
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Mar 3, 2006 11:44:51 GMT -7
Bob,
Are you suggesting America wait until the Islamists have taken over another country like EU and then we get involved like in WWII? It's the unanserably question of how long do we wait to take action. i.e. if for example someone starts destroying and killing everone on your street/town how long should we reprimand them before we retaliate?
Jim
Jim
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Mar 3, 2006 14:16:47 GMT -7
Piwo, yes, lots of civilians died in WW II but before AMerica joined the coalition almost all Europe was occupied by Hitler already. Nothing like that happened in Iraq. Yes, Saddam tried earlier to conquer the neighbors but his powers were taken away from him 10 years prior. +++I'm sure every liberal in the USA wishes it to fail miserably and the suffering to continue+++
;D The encyclopedia defination does not describe the AMERICAN LIBERAL. Today's American Liberal is more defined to be like the National Socialist Party that ruled Germany from the middle 1930's to the middle of the 1940's. Sadman Hussein and his Party defied and ignored all the resolutions of the United Nations. But what is it to be? All of the UN's resolutions are made just to be ignored? OH! I get it, the difference between Yugoslavia and Hussein was that Hussein was paying out bribes and Yugoslavia was not. Yugoslavia did not attack America and it did not envade any signees to NATO so there was no reason for NATO to attack Yugoslavia. Why are we still wasting money in that country after all these years? I get it! When Serbia starts paying bribes to France, Germany and the UN, there will be a call for pullout. Bob, I know you love to stir the pot and I promised I wasn't going to get mixed up in this but - I have to ask why do YOU get to define what an American Liberal is or is not. I think you have been reading too much Ann Coulter. I will admit that one of the major problems with "liberals" is that at the moment there is no center and they as a group are allowing "conservatives" to define them rather than articulating clearly what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Mar 3, 2006 14:28:56 GMT -7
You know, I have to say that I have had the good fortune to meet several folks from the former Yogoslavia and environs and that are all VERY happy that we and the other NATO countries stepped in.
|
|