Where does it end? Over 500 now...
 

When they start comparing this to Vietnam, they really lose credibility .... oh wait, this article is written for <i>"the Progressive Community."</i> Never mind. :rolleyes:

"500" was put into perspective on one of the news shows. "500" they said, is a comparable amount of deaths in two or three large American cities over a twelve-month period. Chicago was used as the example in the news cast.

Here in L.A., there have been a couple years where "500" has been reached. But then again, L.A. is also a Third World country. :rolleyes:

This is interesting, because if I was saying that the 3000 deaths of the WTC were little compared to the 200,000+ deaths a year due to medical malpractice, it would not sound politically correct. This is in US interrest that these deaths be overexposed. On the other hand, it is politically correct and in the US interrest that the 500 deaths in combat in Iraq be underexposed, and minimized.
Even if this is not comparable to Vietnam, the fact that the 500 deaths where reached after less than year while this took three years in Vietnam is somewhat worrisome.

Aurel

you got that right!

whenever I see a factually unsupported comparison like this one on Vietnam, the "politically motivated bull*****" meter really hits a high. let's ask them, shall we, what years are they talking about? the ones right after the fall of Dien Bien Phu where there was practically no U.S. involvement to speak of yet?? or was it during the first three years of Johnson's Americanization where thousands ended up dying? that comparison is assinine. comparatively speaking, Iraq was a full-on assault with tens of thousands of troops. five hundred is amazingly low for this type of action. yes, every one of those lives is a tragedy and should not be overlooked, but to compare this in any way to Vienam? that's like comparing apples to fire hydrants

Let's see...so far we have a Frenchman (living in New Jersey) and a Canadian telling us what U.S. policy should be...we haven't heard from an Afghani yet. ;)

...oh wait, this article is written by Reuters one of the most respected news services in the world.

...oh wait, that would be Reuters analyzing Pentagon prepared/issued statistics.

...oh wait, I have no other rational counter argument or meaningful evidence to add to this exchange, so I will throw down this meaningless statement.

Reuters is foreign owned, I believe. In fact, I think Reuters is French.

Yes..Reuters is European and seems to have an agenda all its own....I once knew a manager who had a sign on his desk: "If you are not ready to help me solve the problem, you ARE the problem".

"It is far wiser to keep your mouth closed and appear to be a fool than open it and remove all doubt". For some, this is far more difficult than it is for others.

'Nuff said.

Don`t you think Fox news also has an agenda of its own? And do you challenge the information provided by Reuters ? Ok, fine. Then, give me one source of information that does not have its own agenda. Just one.

Aurel

Reuters didn't analyze jack ***** in that article. they were simply quoting someone with vague and unsupported statistics

Come on guys, there is a whole internet out there to try and find "facts". There is at least some support for the statistic - whether it is relevant or not is a different question (as ronin said up above).

For instance (where they get their figures from seems ok to me):

http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/001387.html

Personally, I think comparisons to Vietnam are stupid at this point.

finally, Cameron actually agrees with me! :D:D

actually. I am surprised at the way the author handled the data. chart 3 shows exactly the point I was trying to make. if 1965 is used as a starting date (as many would because this is the point where the US began taking an active part in combat instead of merely advising) then the comparison with Iraq becomes absurd. the data from that point on makes Iraq look like a walk in the park compared to Vietnam