Monday, November 06, 2006


ATTENTION ALL WAR MONGERS

In addition to my comments in the “Democratic Response”, I thought that for fun, I’d point out what I find to be the most ironic of all ironies in this whole Iraq fiasco. The number of dead is essentially meaningless in any argument supporting action by this Country. I’ll splain it to ya.

First of all, suffer my brief disclaimer. 9/11 was a tragedy, it shouldn’t have been allowed to happen, and a measured retaliation was called for. I oppose terrorism and believe that war is necessary when what you believe in is actually and imminently at risk. I also believe that the way you win wars is not by trying not to kill people. That’s how wars are fought and won. Ask anyone who remembers WWII. If we had selectively targeted the German evildoers, we’d still be bogged down in Germany. Like it or not, innocent people have to die. If you don’t have the stomach for it or the mind to understand it, then don’t pretend you think war is a good idea ever. If huge amounts of people will criticize the deaths of innocents, then perhaps the reasons behind the war needs to be rethought. Few civilized persons protested the innocent deaths of Germans and Japanese in the effort to end WWII, because that god-forsaken war needed to be won.

Now back to my commentary – Most people believe that the loss of the lives of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2006 was the single worst tragedy in American history since 1941, and that the sheer magnitude and suddenness of that loss justified all of the measures which followed, including the creation of a Homeland Security Dept and the initiation of two wars in two separate countries (and lets not forget the appropriation, budgeting and spending of approximately 78 BILLION dollars every 9 months or so – and may this entire Congress dems and repubs all suddenly die of a heart attack caused by pork-induced-clogged-arteries!)

But I digress . . . As a country – as a people, we react to large numbers, or so it seems. Nearly 3,000 people died on 9/11 – and that was the impetus to mentally prepare for war (though our hunger for blood wouldn’t be satisfied for some time thereafter). Nearly 3,000 soldiers have died there, and now we want to change our policy because we’ve had enough. Really? Consider the following.

Every day in this country, approximately 115 people die on American roads as a consequence of traffic accidents – that’s right EVERY DAY. That’s 3,450 Americans dying every month and 41,400 Americans dying EVERY YEAR. This is a national statistic and you can look it up if you find it hard to believe. The NTSB tracks it annually. Since September 11, 2001, 248,400 Americans have died on US roads as a result of traffic accidents. This figure does not include injuries – this figure only accounts for deaths! There are over 6,000,000 accidents every year and over 3,000,000 injuries.

So when we look at the cosmic forces, which account for the greatest loss of innocent American lives, is it terrorism? Is it foreign countries making threats against the United States? No. It’s us – clearly we’re our own biggest threat to what we love and are willing to die for – our right to live. Ok, you might be saying, well can’t we assume that ½ the time the negligent or guilty driver dies in the accident so the number should only be half as much? Sure, if that makes you feel better. In that case, since September 11, 2001, 124,200 innocent Americans were murdered on US roads by negligent drivers. And when you start adding in deaths caused by handguns, (or murder 15,000 per year), negligent medical treatment (doctors negligently cause 100,000 iatrogenic deaths per year), smoking (450,000 people die annually due to causes directly related to cigarettes) etc., you start to wonder just what the hell the excitement is all about. Again, I’m not diminishing what happened on 9/11, but I question the size of the response in consideration of other bigger threats, which go unchecked every day (and often times are protected), right here on American soil.

Ah Yes! But the reason Bush and his buddies are in Iraq is for humanitarian purposes! After all, isn’t the Republican position that Saddam is a war criminal and killed hundreds of thousands of his people in furtherance of his dictatorship? Aren’t we really there to spread Democracy and make Iraq a better and safer place for mankind? Isn’t that our motivation? Save the lives of innocent people whose plight cries out for a Democratic system of government?

Well, if that were true, wouldn’t it make sense to start by stopping the most serious crimes against humanity and prioritize our use of resources? In case you haven’t noticed, millions of people (YES MILLIOINS) are being slaughtered (and have been slaughtered, maimed, butchered, raped and suffered other unthinkable crimes) in Africa and particularly in Rwanda. Our country has done nothing worth mentioning to stop it. Why? Because stopping the human slaughter of innocent people is not the type of business the US gets involved with – unless it can be used as an excuse for pursuing some other loftier (or personal) objective –. And unfortunately for the Rwandans, their sorry asses are sitting on top of useless, sun-baked dirt, below which does not flow billions and billions of barrels of precious oil.
So again, forget the numbers. There’s plenty of big numbers out there to justify any action you want to take. The problem is that it is hard to justify what’s going on in Iraq when you really look at the numbers – which you have to admit, are rather paltry by comparison to the real threat we Americans face every day.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Tkon, the difference between the thousands killed in Iraq and the thousands killed on American roads is that as Americans, we have the right to pursue happiness. If that pursuit means driving a motocycle without a helmet for some Americans, its their right. What we don't have the right to do (and what no other person on the planet has a right to do to Americans) is impede someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So, the only statistic needed in your article would be the handgun/murder stat (since that accounts for deaths in America of innocent lives - much of the time at least). However, that's already against the law, and if you commit murder you are subject to arrest, so there isn't any argument here.

As far as Rwanda goes, I thought the democratic party liked to think that "America is not the police force of the world". It seems to me that Repubs are more likely to see some form of genocide or other attrocity (mustard gassed Kurds for example - (head tilts back) uh huhhhuhhh mustard kurds....(drool)) and desire to act, but are held back by dems. Dems seem to focus more on the cost of taking action, versus whether it is the right thing to do. That's the big difference between now and WWII. In the 1940s, U.S. citizens (regardless of party affiliation) supported military action (they went without sugar, tires for their cars, they planted Victory gardens, etc...). I don't think most Americans would be willing to do that today (sadly).

I think action in Afganistan was justified. Iraq (in hindsight) may not have been - at least not under the pretense of WMD. However, now that we have gone in and lost lives and made progress, leaving prior to some form of governmental stability seems, well, stupid.

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you and I see eye to eye on this a lot more than perhaps you’d be willing to admit. First of all, we are not talking about what’s legal vs. illegal or anything like that. What we’re talking about is expending resources to correct a perceived problem that threatens me and/or you in a very real way. I don’t think terrorism threatens us as a society or even as individuals in a very real way. If you compare the number of people killed worldwide by terrorists to those killed in car accidents world wide, the argument looses a lot of its oomph.

And by the way, me being killed by a negligent motorist or criminal is a real threat I worry about every day. Little is done to make me feel safer around that. I don’t to be involved in some stupid foreign war to stop something that isn’t even what I consider a real threat to me. I want to pursue my life and my liberty and my right to happiness, all without the threat that some mother-fucker with a tricked out Hyundai is going to snuff me out on the way home from work. We all should be sweating that one every day.

Back to Rwanda – As I said before, I’m not a democrat – just a frustrated voter with no party. And I’m not suggesting we get involved over there either. I’m just saying that if you’re going to PRETEND that you give a shit about people, make sure you put your efforts where you can effectuate the most good. I’m just calling Bush a liar here. That’s all. I don’t want any part of that god-forsaken country.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, I basically agree with your comment, except that sometimes when you make a mistake (as we have) and we admit it (as we have) we can’t just go on as if we haven’t without regard for the consequences.

12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok, fairly stated. Now, what other topic can we butcher? How about butchers? I have a good one who's business is called "Charlies Custom Cutting". You can drop off a dead deer, and in a few days when you go back, presto! Its all wrapped up in cellophane and looks like something you'd get from the store. I wish he didn't charge 50 bucks to do it, though.

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apples, oranges, bananas, papaya- they're all the same to you. So many ideas to criticize here. This is fun...
1. Stay on subject: War in Iraq. You're saying pull out like there would be no retaliation. Like we could just go on as if it never happened. And leave the Iraqi people even more vulnerable than they were before.
2. Wouldn't we LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to go in and really (without rhyme, reason, sentiment) wipe them out. We're talking President Bush. From Texas. A hunter. Don't you think he'd love to just go in and be a war monger? HE'S A HUNTER FROM TEXAS. However, we have papparazi watching his every move. He's like the guys on the PGA tour. Every single, minute, detail of his every, single move is documented and scrutinized by the press. And then the rest of the world. Back in the day, we didn't have a thousand reporters telling the world our every move. We could act now and apologize later. Nowadays it's a little different. We have to think before we act. People didn't protest because they didn't find out until much later.
We're in Iraq. We're THERE. We can't change that.
3. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN agreed with the going in when we did. I didn't hear ANYONE saying, "Let's see if we can't just be friends." Or "Wow, those terrorists make a good point, let's learn from the deaths of thousands of innocent, completely unsuspecting Americans and keep to ourselves." Or "Let's forgive."
4. We have foreign policy because foreign countries need us. We can't forsake the majority simply because a few hell-raising miscreants scared us off. That's why we called it a war on Terrorism instead of a war on Iraq. We're not at war with the majority of INNOCENT Iraqi people, we're at war with the few crazy gun-toting, suicide-bombing agitators who will never be happy until they are dead.
5. "Stuff" happens everywhere you look. It happens. Terrorism is something we can clamp down on. It's something within our control to do something about. We can't stop bad drivers from doing horrible things behind the wheel.
6. Bush didn't go in and terrorize them. That IS humanitarian. Pulling out now, setting them up for failure, revoking their right to dream of a better life- THAT would be inhumane. The things Saddam has done are a sin against my Christian God and at the very least a crime against humanity. Saddam is a CONVICTED war criminal.
7. "Africa." That is your retort? Africa is made up of a series of smaller countries (states) who govern themselves independently. A majority of their fighting is tribe against tribe, gov't against gov't. They have no centralized gov't, only a voluntary union. They don't even have the same languages. Who would we side with? Sometimes one group is right, sometimes that same group is simply bloodthirsty. There isn't one, single person or party in control of a mass slaughter.

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ADDgirl – your rant is so long, I’ll address your comments by numbered paragraph!

1. You have a point. Pulling out would definitely add insult to injury. Unfortunately, what’s the alternative? How many ‘Merican’s you willin ta lose?

2. I think I have to concede this point to you. I did forget about the effect of the god-damn media on everything. My apologies I guess are in order.

3. Respectfully, I must disagree. There were many, who called for restraint and questioned whether going in was right. I agreed for two reasons, both of which, in hindsight were wrong. First, I was still high on the adrenalin of hatred and wanted blood. And second, I believed my president when he promised a swift and unforgiving conflagration which would spare Americans and limit the total loss of life. Because Bush lied to me, I get to recant my vote for war.

4. Um – I’m not sure you’re making a point here. But don’t worry – I think I know what you’re saying. The problem is our brilliant president has declared war on an “idea” instead of against another “nation.” You can’t fight an idea with tactical military weapons. I’m positive you understand that so I won’t insult you by attempting to explain it.

5. We can stop terrorism but we can’t stop bad driving? Is that what you’re saying? Well, depending on how far we want to go as a nation and how important safe roads are to us, I’d say there’s a hell of a lot we can do to make our roads safer. This is a ridiculous example, but it makes my point – if drivers were exposed to the death penalty for negligent driving, I’d bet you’d see a whole lot of safe driving out there (starting with me!!) But my point is that the laws we pass and enforce very much control or at least influence behavior in this country. There will always be scofflaws, but enforcement makes a difference. Just look at what Mayor Giuliani did for New York City – they didn’t even have to pass any new laws. They just enforced the ones on the books and made a conscious decision to do so. Believe me, we can make our roads and neighborhoods safer – especially if we got rid of all the damn Liberals.

6. Ok – now you’ve just gone ahead and lost your mind. I’m not going to debate any of that with you. >sound of “game over” buzzer<

7. I think you just got tired and gave up when you got to Rwanda. Actually, thanks for making me laugh.

2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The terrorists seem to be good at fighting the idea of "westernism" with tactical military weaponry. They've just beat the idea of 'Merican military supremacy (assuming we're leaving Iraq before we win).

3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They’re not beating “Westernism” with military weaponry – they’re beating Westernism with Fanaticism. And in the rock-paper-scissors world of bad-ass-shit, Fanaticism always beats Westernism.

5:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Hangman
Free content provided by The Free Dictionary