Okay let me get this straight, everytime you learn someone has died in an accident you grief.. as compared to if someone dies in Iraq you dont feel anything.. I understand you now.. Are you sure your post has nothing to do with your support for the war? So why try express your latest justification your first post? funny you captilized HOPE because that's the only good thing the war has brought them for now.. and are you sure you didn't try to disprespect the fallen soldiers? You tried to sarcastically point out that its the soldiers fault in the first place for being duped and they know what they were getting into.. the problem is they didn't sign up and expect to die in a needless war.. Just admit it.. you tried to address the posters against this war by saying troop death in a needless war is not a big deal (at least for you) compared to other deaths so why protest about it.. which I think is pretty lame and desperate..
What you seem to be doing is interpreting what I wrote in a particular way and no matter how I try to clarify myself you cling to your original interpretation. You also like to put words in my mouth. My post never expressed any of my personal feelings about traffic accidents or the war in Iraq. Once again, my question is: Why do some of you get more upset when people die in one fashion rather then when they die in another? That's it. Please answer the question or drop it.
do you deny that those are your posts? or were they altered in any way? are you sure that is your original question? so if that is your question, why is the thread title "Road Deaths in the US vs. War in Iraq"
... cars are NOT. Bring back the horse! I think you have made a valid analysis. I could get even more stringent though. Big surprise, huh?! Innocent people die because of our insistence on convenience: comfortable cars that travel at high speeds 24 hours a day upon our demand. And of course the dread irony of the Middle East oil fueling it all...
Those are my posts but when I try to clarify you seem to ignore me. Once again, you've interpreted them one way and are sticking to that interpretation regardless. Why is the thread titled what it is? Because those are the two situations that I'm comparing: Why do some people seem to get worked up over people dying one way (Iraq war) but don't get worked up when people die another way (traffic accidents). You implied that I lessened the sacrifice of US Soldiers who have died in Iraq but can't you turn that around? Aren't you lessening the pain and suffering of people who've died in traffic accidents by saying their "just" accidents? Aren't those deaths just as tragic? If so, why no public outrage? 40,000 people a year is a lot of people. Now. Please answer the question (indulge me) or drop it. Other people have brought up the fact that our government spends tons of money fighting terrorism when way more people die each year from accidents or the flu or cancer. Why do our priorities manifest themselves that way?
All deaths are tragic. But by protesting the death of soldiers does not mean I make other deaths less tragic. Did you see me ever attempt to make traffic deaths less tragic before you posted this thread? But you on the other hand clearly attempted to make soldiers deaths less tragic by posting this thread. What made you decide to talk about traffic deaths at this particualr time? And why did you specifically compare it to soldiers deaths if there are a lot of other deaths you can compare it to? Because of the attention being paid to soldiers deaths? And you wanted to attempt to distract the attention from it?
Geez Chase is your view of outrage framed only by the D & D? Just because our outraged by the deaths in Iraq doesn't mean people aren't outraged about reckless driving. Have you heard of MADD? Do you wonder what those crosses and flowers put at odd spots along highways are for? No rational person here isn't outraged by traffic deaths just because they are outraged by deaths in Iraq. As humans we have the capacity to be outraged about many things. Further reckless driving and drunk driving isn't a matter of our elected leaders ordering people to risk their lives by driving recklessly or drunk. Its individual decisions and is more of a sociological issue than a political issue. Outrage regarding the deaths of troops in a war that citizens disagree with is to enact change in leadership. Outrage regarding deaths caused by individual action is meant to enact wide scale social change. While similar they are different and the means of addressing those issues is different. This is why this you are getting the type of response because the comparison is flawed. Yes deaths are deaths but again you don't approach the problems of people dying say to breast cancer as you would to troops dying in a war.
I thought the comparison of auto deaths and Iraq War deaths was so dumb. that I didn't care to pile on to the slaughter. Now I find out the idea was not just dumb, but unorigiinal. Rumsfeld thought it up!! http://www.antiwar.com/orig/branham.php?articleid=7036
111chase111 Why aren't you as out raged by the 1870 deaths in Iraq as you were over the deaths causes by 9-11, using your logic. The death toll in Iraq will be more Americans killed than 9-11 so we should be more outraged right?
