quote:

ORIGINAL: wankerforuse

their has been so much senseless killing in Iraq

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: wankerforuse

their has been so much senseless killing in Iraq

Deaths due to car wrecks (in the US only, 2004: 365 days):  42,636
Deaths per day:  ~116.8
Coalition deaths in Iraq (all members, full duration: 1628 days):  4,038
Deaths per day:  ~2.5

If preventing deaths is your cause, don't you feel that there may be more practical ways of going about this?

PS-  I just often question exactly how politically motivated such calls are.  Bush can not, in good conscience, allow Iraq to slip into anarchy.  Every death, every mistake that occurs, though, will be pinned on him.  Damn you politicians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks  for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Not to mention you are counting the victims of the driver in your death total, but not including Iraqi deaths in your total victims of US soldiers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
It really is applies and oranges, I thought you were the math genius, you must know that comparison is total "bullocks" (did I use that right, hehe, seen the english posters use it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

And after the US pulls out there is going to be killing and slaughter in that nation the likes of which we havn't seen in decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks  for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands.

I was comparing relative sources of death, not suggesting that driving a car is as dangerous as soldiering.  The point was that there are fare more preventable deaths here.  This point is made. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Not to mention you are counting the victims of the driver in your death total, but not including Iraqi deaths in your total victims of US soldiers.

Preventing wrecks will also prevent the deaths due to wrecks.  Withdrawing soldiers will not prevent deaths due to in-fighting in Iraq.  This decision was appropriate.  (Also, you said "US soldiers".  Those figures included all soldiers from every country in the coalition.)

In good faith, I must admit I failed to consider a major aspect.  But you won't like it.  Bush's claim that withdrawing police forces would allow for more violence.  Like the man or not, his claim is more than just a little likely.  Often, I hear, "But screw the Iraqis.  American lives are being lost.  Let them fight it out."  These numbers also aptly answer such an argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
It really is applies and oranges, I thought you were the math genius, you must know that comparison is total "bullocks" (did I use that right, hehe, seen the english posters use it).

You spoke too soon.

Too much politics.  I feel you're attacking this just because it happens to be in Bush's favor. I don't give a damn which way it leans.  If it helps or hurts anyone's political agenda.  This is the truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks  for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands.

I was pointing out how comparing 300 million people versus a group of a few hundred thousand without equalizing the population numbers involved is not a basis for any comparison at all. Like zero percent relevance, if you like. It just confuses the issue it doesn't clarify it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm glad you're not easily offended.  ;)

But, yes, I'm more concerned with how many people actually die than what percentage of a particular population is happens to be.

And, yeah.  Bathroom accidents would be a bigger issue than Iraq if it was killing more people.  You could pick something even sillier.  We would have to try to stop people from painting their toe nails pink if we turned up with 50,000 dead bodies per year due to it.

Trying to be cute and sarcastic doesn't change the fact that scalar death rates are the primary concern.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

There are a few issues here causing some of the reaction to your numbers:
First, you are not using numbers normalized for population size.  For instance, the death rate due to auto accidents (US) for 2003 is 15.3 per 100,000. 

The second problem is that you are not including Iraqi casualties due to coalition action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
And a more subtle issue is that maybe you should be comparing a coalition death rate to the population of people in the US who are in dangerous professions like police work and firefighting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

And after the US pulls out there is going to be killing and slaughter in that nation the likes of which we havn't seen in decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Satyr6406

Let's be very clear about something:
 
      If you discount all the lies that the current administration told and you completely ignore all the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, two, absolute FACTS remain.
 
            1) We helped Saddam rise to power in Iraq because we knew that he would help us by prosecuting a war with Iran (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.). We chose him because he wasn't a "Muslim extremist" which benefitted from this two fold: He wouldn't "hate" westernization and the fact that Iran was a theocracy would not sway him in his "mission" to "make them pay" for what they had recently (at that time) done to us.
 
      While Saddam suited our needs, at one time, he had become an unstable force in that region and was a "loose cannon", just looking for an excuse to "go of".
 
            2) We KNOW, for a fact that Saddam HAD WoMDs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. Whether we knew or not if he still had them, on the day we invaded is a matter for conjecture but we knew that he HAD been in possession of them. Since we didn't know where they were; we could not account for them (after years of U.N. inspections by Hans Blix, a man who couldn't find a drunk at a St. Patrick's Day Parade), we needed to go in and lay hands on them or account for their where-abouts. It's really that simple.
 
      Now, in case you couldn't tell, I supported the invasion, initially (along with such conservative "war mongers" as Sen. Kerry and Sen. Clinton) but, I have said for quite some time that once we captured Saddam and spent a reasonable amount of time searching for WoMDs that were not going to be found, we needed to extricate ourselves instead of trying to inflict our imperialistic vision upon a people who wanted no part of it.
 
      If you remember, initially, the populace of Iraq seemed to be (at least) okay with the fact that were were there, trying to oust Saddam. It wasn't until we started spewing bullshit about "helping Iraq to realize a democratic society" that the common gentry started resisting our presence there.
 
      Had the Bush administration done, simply, what they said they wanted to do, initially, gotten the job done and gotten out, I would have been proud of the situation. Unfortunately, since they didn't do that I know hold the Bush administration responsible for EVERY DEATH that has occurred since about 2 months after Saddam was de-throned.
 
 
 
 
 
Peace and comfort,
 
 
 
 
 
Michael

quote:

There was no emergency here.bush had all this planned wayyyyyy before the war.The destruction of the Iraqi nation and institutions.The infrastructure and economic system they had, all wiped away,on purpose.There was always a plan to impose our systems and values on them.at the point of a gun.
 
He also was bullshitting Kerry and Clinton.You can`t blame them,for the sins of bush.(though you`ll try).They were working with fabricated evidence and made up intelligence.
 
 
This is all on bush. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

There was no emergency here.bush had all this planned wayyyyyy before the war.The destruction of the Iraqi nation and institutions.The infrastructure and economic system they had, all wiped away,on purpose.There was always a plan to impose our systems and values on them.at the point of a gun.
 
He also was bullshitting Kerry and Clinton.You can`t blame them,for the sins of bush.(though you`ll try).They were working with fabricated evidence and made up intelligence.
 
 
This is all on bush. 

As much as I dislike the G.W. Bush administration; Clinton, Kerry, and Congress were not mislead.  Clinton's own administration had information about WMD programs in Iraq, and they had seriously discussed an invasion.   All of that occurred long before Bush was even considering running for the Presidency.  Clinton is the one responsible for the embargo throughout the 90's which caused thousands and thousands of deaths.  Several foreign intelligence services had suspicions about WMD programs in the works there as well.  I don't fault Bush for ordering the invasion.  I fault him and his advisors for their stubborn refusal to do what needed to be done to secure the country after invasion.  Bush had a opportunity to remove Saddam and leave the country in decent shape.  But because of the arrogance of his advisors, the necessary steps needed to take control were bungled.  The Iraqi Army should have been kept intact for the most part.  The Iraqi police should have been kept intact.  The people running the infrastructure should have been kept in place.  The numerous arms caches around the country should have been secured and guarded.