It's clear that many people on this board are against the war in Iraq. In addition to claims that it hurts the War on Terrorism rather than help it or that it has nothing to do with the War at all, some of you complain about the dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians that are needlessly killed. Cindy Sheehan's protest is about the soldiers (like her son) that she feels are dying and suffering in vain with regard to (in her opinion) a needless war. So, if dying soldiers are such a concern (even though they volunteered to be in harms way) how come 1.2 civilian deaths in the world per year doesn't garner much notice or outrage? What about the 130,000 people in the Americas and 44,500 people in the U.S. who die each year in traffic accidents? Aren't these deaths needless and tragic? More tragic than a soldiers death because most of the time they are just innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time (as opposed to a soldier who has some idea of the danger that he/she is going to face). How come there is not more Democratic or Republican outrage at these deaths? With the Iraq war at least we get rid of a satanic dictator who killed between 200,000 to a million of his own people. At least now the Iraq citizens have HOPE for a better life and country. I'm just curious why 1800 or so soldiers dying in a needless war is more worthy of protest then civilians dying in needless traffic accidents. Why don't people demand stricter traffic laws, safer vehicles (i.e. limited to 50 MPH or so) and harsher punishments for traffic violators? Obviously I'm asking more out of intellectual curiosity than anything else. Why is the war worth spending effort criticizing and protesting but not traffic deaths when millions more die from traffic accidents than the war. Cars, of course, for now are necessary for life and the economy. But bad driving (the cause of most accidents) is not necessary. If bad driving is just as, if not more, needless than the war why no marches against bad driving? To me its kind of like the fear of SARS vs. the fear of the Flu. The flu kills something like 40,000 people annually in the U.S. It's way more dangerous than SARS but SARS got all the attention.
Some deaths happen within the normal course of life. Doing things like driving, working, and everything else we do including walking do carry some small risk. In order to live we basically agree to exposing ourselves to hose risks which may very well be NECESSARY in today's societ. But sending soldiers to kill others die and put themselves at an additional risk when it is NOT NECESSARY are why there is a huge difference. The question can also be turned around to those who support the war. Since terrorism doesn't kill near as many Americans or people around the world as heart disease, traffice accidents and the like, why are we wasting so much time and money fighting it? I'm not saying that is my stance, by the way, but it is related the point you are making.
That's the most ridiculous parallel anybody has tried to make with the war in Iraq. Driving is dangerous. War is dangerous. That's where the similarities stop. I'm not get Acute Stress Disorder from driving down the interstate. I've never had a driver intentionally try to run me down. I don't cost the government and taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for equipment just for myself. I don't piss off the world by the way I drive, just a few drivers. Do you have any data that increased traffic laws would reduce the number of driving fatalities? When do the number of laws become a hinderence? When do we have to each start living in a bubble for our own protection? Coming from China this past week where there is no enforcement of driving laws, I'm pretty content with the system here. Driving is dangerous. The best way to lower the danger is to stop driving.
I agree that driving and cars are necessary in today's society, my arguement is that reckless or bad driving is not necessary. Certainly it's worth the effort to reduce the amount of traffic deaths in the U.S. I'm sure everyone here would be willing to drive a slower car and not speed (or accept very stiff penalties for speeding) if it meant 20,000 fewer deaths a year. It may not be necessary but if it means that, in the long run, more people are saved and allowed to live their lives free it could be considered worth it. Allowing fast cars and reckless driving is neither necessary nor worth it.
Only ~2800 ppl died in 9/11. Only ~43k Americans died from breast cancer last year. This is like nothin compared to annual traffic accidents, bro. We should be divertin all cancer research fundin over to the DMV 'n sendin the terr'ists fruitcakes fer goin easy on us!
just by reading this first statement I believe you support the war and the people who architected it but not the troops who are on the ground fighting and dying.. the question is not about people complaining but if this is a needless war or not.. what was the original objective of this war again? so you're saying since the dying soldiers voluteered and its their fault.. but the problem is they did not volunteer to die as terrorist/insurgency targets.. they voluteered to defend the country.. if this is a needless war which had nothing to do with defending america from imminent danger or making america safer then I think it's okay to ask why right? people chose to drive wrecklessly car, people chose to drink, people chose to speed.. but soldiers volunteered to defend the country but they were put in harms way for a needless war so thats different.. besides, using your line of thought then american terrorist deaths is not a bid deal after all.. so why did 1800 soldiers die again? traffic deaths needless? how do you propose to solve this, stop everyone from driving? driving is a neccessity.. death is tragic.. I don't think none is more tragic than the other.. again soldiers expected to die defending the country not for a needless war.. you're a genius.. why don't you start you're own group.. PACH.. people against highways and cars.. was the war forthat? I thought it was for WMDs because america was in grave danger.. that was more than 10 years ago right? also I don't think Saddam single handedly did those.. he had help from other country.. and he could not have done it without other countries ignoring it.. again you're such a genius those are great ideas that no one has thought of yet.. quick run for office .. obviously this is partisan desperation.. just say no to BAD DRIVING.. coz BAD DRIVING kills you.. just say no to the FLU .. coz FLU kills you..
FrancisBlade responded very well because the exact same question can be turned around. In order to make driving safer, it would DIRCTLY affect every American in terms of daily conveniences as well as probably an immediate financial burden via taxes or direct costs to consumers. As such, it probably would also affect the economy and jobs. It COULD have a direct impact on our standard of living. Life has risks but if there is a benefit (like driving freely) then people will put up with it. But what is the benefit to the war for Americans? Cheaper oil? Safer world? Heightened global reputation? I don't see what we're getting out of it. If oil prices dropped then maybe. Reduced terrorism? Well, we've seen majors attacks on Spain and England. I don't feel one bit safer and it seems like a matter of time before we get attacked again with the creation of a new recruiting ground for the next generation of suicide bombers. What about American quality of life? We've spent how many billions on the war? What if we had spent that money to fund Social Security and/or health care? So American quality of life has suffered, IMO, while thousands of people die in Iraq. Suffered because Dubya is proposing ways to reduce the SS entitlement...which could have been averted by applying 1/10th the war fund.
Maybe after gas goes to $10 a gallon. Take a car away from an American and he's naked. I bet I'd see a Hummer or diesel pickup owner drive an ugly looking hybrid that tops out at 65 downhill before he'd take the bus.
That's while lightrail/subway is so important. Here in Houston, folks will ride rail but not buses. My prediction is once it takes $50 to fill up a standard car, people's behavior will start to really change. Right now it's about $35 for me to fill up.
I guess now I can die happily, having read the most ridiculous comparison to prop up a political opinion ever. (no, I've read worse! ) Keep D&D Civil!!
this is where i would tell you to shut up and give me back the 20 seconds of my life i spent reading your first 2 paragraphs (that's where i stopped).
Anyone who uses that term in this context... Oh and BTW, why didn't you mention that we should never have been that upset over Pearl Harbor... 'only' 2403 American servicemen died there? And while you're at it, 'only' 2985 died on 9-11. You also didn't mention that 'only' 13 .. 13 innocent students died at Columbine (the response to that tragedy must have had you totally dumbfounded). I'm just beating a dead horse now...
I haven't been to Houston since 1999 so I don't know much about the popularity of the light rail. Do you really think it's going to have a substantial decrease in the number of motorists?
Playing devils advocate and arguing just for the sake of arguing warning here -------------------------------- But the counter argument is that we actually went after the people responsible for the crime of pearl harbor. The U.S. didn't wage a war with China, Korea, etc. The U.S. went after Japan. We went after Afghanistan, should it have being done there? What are the terrorist links between Al Qaeda and the secular Bathist? How much have taken out of terrorism instead?
Most of you guys (Franchis and Krosfya excepted) missed my point completely. If one of the arguments against the war is the needless deaths of U.S soldiers and Iraqi civilians then why aren't people outraged by the needless deaths all around us from other things? Do we just accept that 40,000 people are going to die each year on the nation's highways? It's okay because taking steps to reduce that number would "inconvenience" us? One of you mentioned that driving was necessary. I did say that in my post, however, bad driving is not necessary and I don't think it would hurt the economy to punish bad driving more severly. Speeding isn't "harmless"; it kills people. Someone else mention that if you choose to drink and drive then you choose your fate. But what about the fate of the innocent people you take with you? The post wasn't about defending a political position but more to explore why people seem to get more outraged with regard to the soldiers deaths in this war than, for example, the 40,000 people a year (that's a LOT of peope!) who die in traffic accidents. By some of your responses, it seems that some of you are okay with that. That seems weird to me.
This actually makes my point. We SHOULD be upset over the people who died in Pearl Harbor, the WTC or in Columbine. Shouldn't we also be upset over the people who die in traffic accidents? Someone else mentioned (in an effort to make fun of me) that only ~43k die of breast cancer. That also makes my point. Why get more upset at some things but let other things just "slide". That's the question I'm trying to get answered.
do you think we were not upset enough or do not do enough about pearl harbor, wtc, columbine, traffic deaths, and breast cancer? can't you see all the wars waged, laws written, people in jail, research being done, and tax money spent specifically for those deaths.. the mother of a dead soldier from a needless war only wants some answers why her son really died and you're complaining that she's asking for too much?
