Comparison? Who made a comparison? This is about lives man.

That is cute – congrats on a making a pretty slick construct. You juxtapose the loss of life in a “frivolous” endeavor (ie cycling) with the loss of life in an “honorable” endeavor (ie operation Iraqi obliteration – or wtf it’s called) – or more precisely; you attempt to use our complacence with the frivolous loss of life as a vehicle to advance the argument for the honorable loss of life. I guess, to paraphrase you are saying:

“We don’t care that thousands of Americans are killed riding their bikes, thereby relatively speaking we should care even less that thousands are killed trying to advance Iraqi freedom because they are certainly dying for something more important than bike riding.”

Interesting construct – but a pretty specious argument. Using this tactic you actually devalue the loss of life – not advance the soundness of a sacrifice, which is what you really hoped to accomplish.

What is a swimming pool death worth?

In 2000, there were 3,482 deaths due to unintenional drowning. So, in 5 years, that would mean 17,500 deaths.

I think it's time for the military to rethink their strategy.
Clearly, the answer is to give bicycles to the Iraqis.

So close yet so far away. Not meant to value or devalue any lives at all. It's simply showing that the real motivations of those using soldiers deaths as tools for their cause. When in reality they don't give two squirts about the loss of lives, only the ability to push their agenda or maybe even only to justify their philosophies in their own minds.

Excellent:D

Yeah but, yeah but -

"their" agenda is to stop the loss of lives. "They" aren't using soldiers (or Iraqis) deaths as a tool for "their" cause.

Death and suffering is "their" cause.

Agreed - give the Iraqis bikes - brilliant!

Way-to-go cashflyer

yeah, but you have to give them arsehole auto drivers to complete the deal...

I've seen footage of Iraqi drivers (well, this was in Saddam's day, when there was no debris in the streets, no burnt out cars or collapsed buildings). Their drivers are up to the task.

No. Their agenda is not to save lives, that's silly. The agenda is the passivist "war is always wrong" mantra. Barring that it's simply to paint the worst possible face on a Republican administration.

If you want to go beyond US lives, just wait till the libs get their wish and we pull out. The wholesale slaughter will make this look like a picnic. No, it's not about lives.

Cycling makes one healthy.

War in Iraq makes Haliburton wealthy.

Which one's more noble?

The problem with the analogy is that I think the vast majority of people don't have a problem with concept of US soldiers dying in combat. Just like most don't have a problem with the concept of 3K people dying pursuing a semi-dangerous hobby.

Lots of soldiers were lost in WWII, which is sad, but most feel was necessary and they lost their lives for a good cause doing what they agreed to do. Lots of people die each year in the US pursing various dangerous and semi-dangerous hobbies, which they choose to do. In both instances, there is no public outrage or complaint.

It's the "cause" people are fighting in this current case. And, yes, in some way, people are using soldier's deaths to support their cause (i.e. that this is a wrong war), but there is a logical link. People who think the war wasn't a mistake/the worst decision ever probably wouldn't mind as much if US soldiers weren't dying. It's a legit ground to use to argue the cause. Heck, I wouldn't mind the ill-conceived war either, if US soldiers weren't dying and it wasn't costing us billions a day.

If a bike company made a bike that was randomly packed with explosives and blew up 3K people per year, and cost the US a trillion dollars, with no end in sight, there would be public criticism or debate on how to end it, I think.

I wasn't trying to justify the war with this post, I'm just tired of hearing the feigned(oh hell, even real for that matter)compassion of the detractors as a reason for withdrawl. An honest debate and all that.

Even with NO compassion, loss of soldiers in a war is a legit ground to oppose a war. Even if you just coldly view soldiers as a US asset. In debating a war, loss of military assets is one of the legit factors to weigh.

But I don't think detractors of the war have feigned compassion. You think they don't mind, or are neutral, on our soldiers dying? I suppose there are some extremists like that, but I wouldn't put the majority of war detractors/critics in that category. It's a war with lots of grounds for criticism, and many reasonable people are detractors of this particular war.

len: You are quickly becoming the poster boy for strawman arguments and comparing apples and oranges. No amount of logic will dissuade you from you point of view, no matter how skewed it is. It is interesting. I read posts from every one (no one on my "ignore" list). And, although I may not agree with much of what tech or supe post, I find their posts, especially tech's to be well thought out and devoid for the most part of negative emotion. Then, there are others who respond with a mix of illogic and emotion, negating any value their post may have and accomplishing nothing but "preaching to the choir". Both ends of the spectrum havehad their ranting raving lunatic posters, and most of them are gone now. Probably nature truly abhors a vacuum and someone has to fill the void.

I can be presuaded by cogent, well thought out arguments, even if they are outside my current convictions. Arguments based on "apples vs. oranges" comparisons do nothing to change my point of view.

What to do about islamofacism is the paramount question of the 21st century. The same as Germany in the teen's, Naziism in the 40's, and communism in the 60's through 80's.

The loss of 3,000 lives in three years is not a reason to give up the way we did in Vietnam. That would just perpetuate the charge that the US is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.

If there is a better use of our military than sticking it out in Iraq, I would like to hear it.

I do not think the death of our soldiers is truly a motivating emotional factor for the more extreme leftists. That is very different from saying they don't care (when presented with it).


If the same number of US soldiers had died over the same period doing some humanitarian mission they would not be using it as a reason for withdrawl (though admittedly some on the right would).

My point is that it shouldn't be used as an emotional leverage tool when debating the mission (considering how historically miniscule it actually is).

The war is not right or wrong because X number of people have died in combat. It's either right or wrong period.

Thanks Bob.

You are entirely welcome. Learn.