Jan 01 2007
US Surpasses 9-11 Deaths
(This previous post is being bumped to today – for obvious reasons) The US has surpassed the number of 9-11 deaths. It accomplished this morbid achievement in less than one month. It did this on the roads and highways of America. In 2001, the year of 9-11, the US saw 42,400 deaths by autombile accidents. That equates to 116 deaths per year. In less than a month, 25 days, the US surpassed the number of deaths incurred in the terrorist attack of 9-11. That is correct. Before we routed the Taliban in Afghanistan, and just shortly after airplane travel was re-established, the lost the same number of people on our highways as we did on that fateful day in September.
Remember that when the media tries to make a big deal out of the fact that, after 3.5 years in Iraq, the US has finally surpassed the number of deaths in that theatre as we lost on 9-11. While the media tries to make a big deal of the deaths in Iraq to rationalize their desparation to surrender to Al Qaeda, they forget to mention that 63 months have passed since 9-11. That means we have lost over 63 times the number of people on our highways as were killed on 9-11, and in the Iraq war. One can only wonder when the liberal media will be calling for us to surrender our nation’s roads and highways to Al Qaeda as well.
AJ,
Any premature death is tragic.
But the American losses in the War on Terror have not been in vain.
The cynical press sees dead soldiers as pawns and statistics instead of selfless heroes. I think that betrays an inadequacy of courage and idealism in the media by not being able to recognize it in others. Worst of all, these gallant soldiers are being deprived of the honor they deserve.
Why doesn’t MSM talk about 45,000 abortions done each year in NYC>
Kathie
They don’t mention the abortions in NYC or other places because this represents a woman’s right to choose. The liberal press is big on their right to choose. To choose multiple sexual partners. To choose to accept no responsibility. To accept no restraints on her actions. To do what she wants when she wants where she wants with no thought or care for anyone else. To choose to be totally selfish and think only of herself. To choose to use abortion as a method of birth control. To murder her own child because he/she is inconvenient.
When I see these women marching or standing up for their right to choose I see women arrogant in their wanton display of selfishness and I wonder where are their hearts. Do they not even think about what they are doing? Do they not think they will have regrets on further doen the road? The sad thing is that many of them do regret it but it is too late then. I could not look at myself in the mirror if I had ever killed my child.
The right to choose doesn’t extend to the military. Per the media, only losers “join up” because they have no other choice.
Women who abort do have choices though many don’t bother to exercise them. They can choose birth control pills, patches, sponges and a host of other methods, but why bother when abortion is a 100% effective safe and easy method of birth control that requires no advance planning.
Pregnant? No big deal. Just hop over to your friendly street corner abortion clinic and step in for a federally funded procedure and voila, you’re not pregnant anymore. Baby? What baby?
There’s no way that the millions of women who abort their babies every year do so to save their lives or because they were victims of rape or incest and if they were molested, why aren’t there corresponding millions of men in jail for those crimes?
They don’t mention the abortions in NYC or other places because this represents a woman’s right to choose.
Isn’t it interesting, Barbara, that the right to choose doesn’t extend to that same “woman” being able to choose what school to send her kids (the ones she doesn’t abort) to, The hypocrisy is underwhelming.
Talk about pointless posts, Crosspatch.
Pointless and dishonoring the troops whose lives have been lost,
as much deceitfully dishonoring the 35,000 maimed for life.
Ignoring also the stalemate with no end in sight–the worst showing for America in any war other than Vietnam for the same time period.
Except in South Vietnam some semblance of a pro-American government was still theoretically capable of retaining power. In Iraq a pro-Iranian government is already dominant and America has no
friends capable of forming a government in the entire region, excepting Israelis. who,however are a large part of why we have no friends among the overwhelming majority.
It is this bleak defeat which Strata attempts to disguise by focussing on a few thousand al Qaeda who compose 4 % of those killing
Strata’s troops. What a charlatan.
Retired Spook
Yeah, I had teenagers in the 70s in Birmingham, Alabama after civil rights. After school every day at the high school the blacks lined up in front of the school with their fists raised chanting. The white kids had to come out between the black kids to get to their parents’ cars. It was a scary thing to see. But we had no choice but to send our kids where the government said to. Unless you had money for a private school you were stuck.
Note that the number of casualties resulting from “hostile” action is 2424 killed so far in Iraq. 578 deaths have been from “non-hostile” causes which includes accident and illness. So far for December, 98 hostile and 15 non-hostile deaths have been reported for US forces in Iraq.
Also, those numbers are very close to the rule of thumb when undergoing any kind of combat operation … about 20% of your casualties will be the result of non-combat causes.
Also the total military deaths during the war in Iraq has been almost identical to the deaths per year for the years in the 90’s that no war was taking place. That means that those same 3000 would have died in the last 3 years war or not. It seems that the military men are safer in Iraq than driving the highways in the US.
What about this: Ken said:”Talk about pointless posts, Crosspatch.” then goes on to make the most pointless post I’ve read today. Liberal drivel.
He said that prior to Crosspatch even posting on this thread. Too funny.
During the first gulf war the military had 500,000 more people than it does now. When you have half a million additional troops even doing peacetime exercises, you would expect to have some casualties just from people falling off of and running into things.
The press has done a very poor job of informing the public just how much our military was shrunk during the Clinton administration.
When I was in the military in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, it probably had a million more than now. We often read reports of field casualties during exercises. One of the worst incidents I recall was a troop of armored cav that ran through an infantry bivouac and killed troops sleeping in their tents. Accidents do happen and when you have more people involved in activities involving vehicles moving at night, in smoke, in all weather … you are going to take casualties.
Same is true for simply routing patrols in a combat area. Vehicles are involved in accidents, people slip, fall, run off the road, off of bridges, etc. It is just a normal sad fact of operations.
Tell you what … if people “really” wanted to end senseless deaths, there is a much easier way to do it. Nearly 50 people each day are killed in this country as a result of people driving under the influence of alcohol. If the police would perform a field BAC test and subjects showing up positive were summarilly executed on the spot, it would probably take about 2 days to completely end drunk driving in the USA. Over 15,000 lives would be saved in this country every year and probably less than a dozen a year would be killed for the offense once word got around.
The above was simply a logic exercise to show that the media isn’t “really” interested in the deaths from Iraq as they are trying to make someone who dies there somehow a lot “deader” than someone who just got killed on the freeway in your neighborhood by a drunk driver. THAT is a senseless death and a topic the media never really seems all that interested in.
Also, if the media spent as much effort covering the 40,000 flu deaths each year (say by running daily death reports and such) as they do on Iraq casualties, they could save an order of magnitude more lives simply by getting people to get vaccinated.
Point is, that it isn’t REALLY about deaths … it is REALLY about politics and the crap of the media seeming to be interested in people dying in Iraq is just that … crap. If they were interested in making a difference in saving lives, they could probably save close to 100 thousand a year just by changing their focus onto things that actually kill a lot more people.
More Strata disrespect shown to the hapless US troop casualties in Bush’ no-win , illegal and botched occupation of Iraq. Baathists and those they have trained are responsible for about 2500 of the 3000
so don’t glory in Saddam’s sacrifice, nor in your
al Qaeda scarecrow, as Hussein organized the
meat of the successful insurgency.
Macker
“Any premature death is tragic.
But the American losses in the War on Terror have not been in vain.”
Were the losses in Vietnam in vain?
Barbara
Why would you wish to inflict America’s pro-abortion
values on conservative Iraq? Because you’re a
pagan state-(empire)worshipper more than an anti-abortionist, dearest.
For Enforcement
“Liberal drivel.” Yeah, to a bitter superannuated
retiree far from danger’s way, Iraq seems still
worth fighting. If he had to fight (or witness) a no-win war, why shouldn’t the youngun’s?
Ken
Where in the world did you ever read any post from me saying anything about pro or anti abortion in regards to Iraq? Did someone slip some booze in your kool-aid last night, dear?
I agree with AJStata calculations. I myself thought about them this way each time i read cheap condemnations of war by liberals in NYT.
Still the key question is whether those losses, each tragic for relatives and family, were for the strategic benefit on the USA, benefit of the people of the country. After all, war is just continuation of politics by other means.
In case of Vietnam soldgers fought with commumism which was the main danger. In this sense they did now die in vain despite the fact that the war was lost.
This is probably the litmus test of any war. And if answer here is “no” then this is a completly different ball game. Like Taleyrand used to say “It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder. ”
BTW Charley Reese put well the key conservative thinking ideas in his recent column about Jefferson Davis:
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20061213/index.php
The responses of Republicans to the violent deaths of Americans is always mystifying:
36,000 deaths on the highways and Republicans lobby against more mandatory safety equipment in vehicles.
30,000 deaths from handguns and Republicans pass concealed carry laws and let the ban on assault weapons expire.
90,000 – 120,000 unnecessary deaths due to medical malpractice each year (figures from the American Medical Association) and Republicans want to cap damage awards in lawsuits.
3,000 Americans killed in a one-time event (9/11) and Republicans want to throw the Constitution out the window and allow felonious warrantless wiretaps and George Bush opening their mail.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Splifbrain,
Like any of those things would reduce the deaths?
And the constitution was followed on Iraq kid, with more dems voting in support than in Gulf War I.
And I am not a republican. Did you UNDERSTAND my comment about your posting simply exposed your ignorance and did nothing to further you causes?
Speaking of a curiousity – why do you keep going to the ‘well of ignorance’?