Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Sep 6, 2004.
While the battlefield medicine advancements of the past 2 decades have turned hundreds of potential KIAs into *mere* WIAs, a casualty rate of 1,000 KIA in 18 months is definitely not something that I would happily write home about.
Rush Limbaugh shed some perspective on the KIA number on his show today. He mentioned that 1,000 young people commit suicide each year and close to 50,000 of our fellow citizens are killed in accidents on our national highways each year, yet very little is said or written by our liberal media about this terrible and senseless loss of life. The loss of our soldiers in battle is tragic, but they volunteered for the mission and are given the best training in the world to get their job done. Loss of life is a byproduct of war; the aim is killing, and far more terrorists have lost their lives since the war on terrorism began than coalition forces.
1,000 KIA in a year and a half is almost nothing. The Army loses dozens of soldiers each year in auto accidents.
That said, I have lost two friends and several acquaintences in Iraq. The best man in my wedding is there right now, as are two other good friends. I have several other close friends that have returned from Iraq. Every casualty we take is a human life, and it sucks to lose people. However, all of us (me being a former Army officer) signed up willingly, ready to lay our lives on the line, if need be, in the line of duty.
I don't think you can chalk up the improving casuality ratio to just battlefield medicine. the quality of our troops, leadership, tactics, and equipment have a lot to do with it. And refering to survivors as "*mere* WIAs" in the context you did, nakedemperor, shows your lack of understanding. Would you rather have more KIAs and fewer WIAs?!?
This is such bizarre logic I don't even know where to start... wow. Wow.
And I put "mere WIAs" in quotations because it was meant to be sarcasm. Apologies if it was too subtle.
And to Adam's Apple: I agree with you completely. Very well stated. Where are all the bleeding hearts for the 400,000 a year that die from tobacco-related illnesses? Why aren't we combating that TRULY SENSELESS loss of life? I've always thought that the war on terror was blown way out of proportion for that same reason. We've lost 5,000 people to terrorism over the last 3 years. By GOP Jeff's logic, that is "almost nothing". So why is it BY FAR the most important issue, dominating news coverage, Presidential and Congressional time and effort, etc. etc. etc. Moreover, why is it such a massive concern to those in middle America, whose likelihood of being effected by terror stands close to nil. People are irrationally and inordinatly affraid, and I think the media and the executive administration have a lot to do (and gain) from it.
see, you don't think beyond your partisan nose.
Jeff's point was that in comparison to the GOOD our soldiers are doing and in comparison to the SAFETY THEY are bringing to the world, frankly, that number is QUITE low.
We LOST nearly 3 times that number in ONE day because we IGNORED the WAR that was DECLARED AGAINST US!
So to save a thousand soldiers, you would give up 3,000 more innocents while they work, drink coffee or talk to their loved ones on the phone all while EXPECTING to just live ANOTHER NORMAL day?
Our soldiers are doing a job they volunteered for and THANK GOD they did. They are fighting this war FOR US so that you can sit here and BLAB your FUCKING mouth about something YOU KNOW NOTHING about.
Terrorism is not about killing people. Its about controlling people. 50,000 people die in car accidents every year but how many people really fear dieing everytime they enter a car? When 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack, millions of others feared going into work, going into tall buildings, and flying in airplanes.
The terrorists controlled our actions through their one incident. If we allow them to run our lives the way they see fit, then we are already dead. That is the point of the WOT. We will not be controlled by a small group of individuals who believe that they are doing Ala's work by destroying our lives.
i think the kill: casualty rate is very worthy of praise... i do agree with gop_jeff's comment that the military is getting better training, better equipment, etc etc. the medical side is good too (my side), but a bullet will always wound you or kill you, whereas with better training and better equipment perhaps you'll be able to dodge that bullet or have its effect nullified (by body armor, etc) compared to the guys whose only defense were their skills and skin in WW2, WW1, etc etc.
here is the main thought though:
compared to the old conflicts (ww2, korean war, ww1), i think war is now more stressful and damaging to the mental state of troops than in the past. you now have insurgencies and terrorists to worry about, as well as the regular ol soldiers you face in battle.
like my friend davey in the 82nd airborne says, "we'd be in a village street with 100 good folks and 2 bad guys among them who would shoot at us hoping we'd shoot one of the 100 good folks and inflame opinion and hatreds against our presence."
oh how simplistic the old days must have been compared to now...
Well, at least I have manners. And a non-twitchy caps lock finger. You missed my point, but I'm not going to blame it on your partisan nose. While that may have something to do with it, I'm sick and tired of your overt generalizations about Democrats and liberals.
That being said, I was responding ONLY to the part of his post that I quoted, not the rest, which, as as you said, was about the good things our soldiers are doing for us. I wonder why you took me out of context so willingly and/or carelessly.
My point was not about what terrorism does-- my point had to do with "irrational" fear, not the PRESENCE of fear. But, since you chose to read my post as a 'down with the troops', I'm so ungrateful way, I'll have to restate it: people fear terrorism disproportionally. Some people fear terrorism when they don't have to at all. The amount of fear and coverage terrorism gets is WAY out of proportion to the 3,000 deaths in 3 years. I mean, we have an entire section of this forum devoted to it! Its similar to the type of fear people have of sharks when they're going in the ocean. Odds are, you're not going to get bitten by one, even if you went in the ocean every day of your life, several lives over. The same goes for terrorism. Moreover, its taking your attention away from thing you SHOULD be fearing, and have more respect for, like driving your car, or puffing on your cigarette. If only the president would come out one day and say, 'We don't know where, we don't know when....but you're going to die of lung cancer." I think people would listen. That's the type of power the president has. That's the type of power he's abusing.
For most of the examples you cite, the individual has some control (driving, smoking, swimming in the ocean, etc.). There is little that an individual can do to protect against a terrorist act and still live a reasonably normal life. Terrorism is a very real threat whose purpose is to create fear. I would say in that regard that the terrorists are being effective in their execution. Whether that fear is unreasonable or not is a whole different discussion.
Separate names with a comma.