Why do we get a news report for every death in Iraq when

[theblackbox]

Last year 42,643 people died in car accidents
17,013 were alcohol related(almost 40%)

source

16,503 murders and nonnegligent manslaughter cases reported in 2003 nationwide

source

Is it because their is no political agenda to follow up on what happens in the US, what effects all of us here? Is there no profit in that kind of death or gain to be had, or is it to hard to sensationalize death at or around the home?

I do not want to degrade the lifes lost oversea in any war, having been in the service myself I am proud of the job our soldiers are doing, and hope they come home safely when they are able, but it seems everywhere you look the most focus is on our losses in Iraq, when our losses at home due to stupidity, criminal intent, and neglect are much worse.

 

[judasmachine]

In my opinion it's because it's not sensationalist enough. But then I have a low opinion of both sides of the media. But those who die in auto accidents are just that victims of an accident. A soldier isn't a victim of happenstance they are victims of political agendas, and power grabs. That is if you call a willing soldier a "victim."

 

[Rainsford]

The same argument can (and has) been made about the effects of terrorist attacks. The number of people that died on 9/11 is grossly disproportionate to the amount of effort and money we have expended on their behalf when compared to the number of people that die from other causes.

But as bad as it sounds, we're used to the murders and the alcohol related deaths and the car accidents. We're not used to terrorism or deaths from war. The "novelty" of those deaths is what prompts the reactions we see.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
In my opinion it's because it's not sensationalist enough. But then I have a low opinion of both sides of the media. But those who die in auto accidents are just that victims of an accident. A soldier isn't a victim of happenstance they are victims of political agendas, and power grabs. That is if you call a willing soldier a "victim."

Possibly, but it goes beyond the media...NO ONE talks about it. We're all willing to spend billions and billions fighting in Iraq and protection against terrorist attacks, but making driver education better...forget it!

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: judasmachine
In my opinion it's because it's not sensationalist enough. But then I have a low opinion of both sides of the media. But those who die in auto accidents are just that victims of an accident. A soldier isn't a victim of happenstance they are victims of political agendas, and power grabs. That is if you call a willing soldier a "victim."

Possibly, but it goes beyond the media...NO ONE talks about it. We're all willing to spend billions and billions fighting in Iraq and protection against terrorist attacks, but making driver education better...forget it!

You have a very good point. Try bringing up mandatory yearly testing for senior citizens for a driver's licence to a 65 year old. They will fight you tooth and nail, even if they are legally blind. I think maybe we just don't give a [random expletitive] about what people "do to themselves."

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: judasmachine
In my opinion it's because it's not sensationalist enough. But then I have a low opinion of both sides of the media. But those who die in auto accidents are just that victims of an accident. A soldier isn't a victim of happenstance they are victims of political agendas, and power grabs. That is if you call a willing soldier a "victim."

Possibly, but it goes beyond the media...NO ONE talks about it. We're all willing to spend billions and billions fighting in Iraq and protection against terrorist attacks, but making driver education better...forget it!

You have a very good point. Try bringing up mandatory yearly testing for senior citizens for a driver's licence to a 65 year old. They will fight you tooth and nail, even if they are legally blind. I think maybe we just don't give a [random expletitive] about what people "do to themselves."

but do to themselves translates into do to us. When they have an accident, more then likely there will be another car involved, someone innocent and non deserving most likely. i wish it were the case more people ran into trees or had single car accidents. but back to the point.

we worry to much about what people do to themselves, drugs are illegal, suicide is illegal, hell, prsonal choice things like how you wanna have sex or with who seems like it is illegal or will be nationwide at some point. But all our focus is on the BIG story. who cares if every 2 minutes, someone dies in a car accident or by other means unnatural in the US.

nobody will blame the government, the auto makers, or anybody for that.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: judasmachine
In my opinion it's because it's not sensationalist enough. But then I have a low opinion of both sides of the media. But those who die in auto accidents are just that victims of an accident. A soldier isn't a victim of happenstance they are victims of political agendas, and power grabs. That is if you call a willing soldier a "victim."

Possibly, but it goes beyond the media...NO ONE talks about it. We're all willing to spend billions and billions fighting in Iraq and protection against terrorist attacks, but making driver education better...forget it!

You have a very good point. Try bringing up mandatory yearly testing for senior citizens for a driver's licence to a 65 year old. They will fight you tooth and nail, even if they are legally blind. I think maybe we just don't give a [random expletitive] about what people "do to themselves."

but do to themselves translates into do to us. When they have an accident, more then likely there will be another car involved, someone innocent and non deserving most likely. i wish it were the case more people ran into trees or had single car accidents. but back to the point.

we worry to much about what people do to themselves, drugs are illegal, suicide is illegal, hell, prsonal choice things like how you wanna have sex or with who seems like it is illegal or will be nationwide at some point. But all our focus is on the BIG story. who cares if every 2 minutes, someone dies in a car accident or by other means unnatural in the US.

nobody will blame the government, the auto makers, or anybody for that.

Oh definately, I've had two close friends die because of drunk drivers. One was a victim, the other the assailant. But I don't know to be honest what makes one loss any more important than another. I do find it sad to watch people die because of political agendas, but it's equally sad to watch a sad drunk with nothing better to do than hurl himself into traffic.
Didn't someone once say, "One loss diminishes us all."

EDIT I do want to say I'm sick of hearing about crap like the Scott Peterson case, that's not news, that's a soap opera. Try him for the heinous crime but don't spend hours filling me in on the sick sordid details of his life. I simply don't care. Tell it to the jury and the judge.

 

[Chadder007]

Yeah....at one point this year, the murders in Washington, DC outnumbered the killings in Iraq of our soldiers. 😕

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Yeah....at one point this year, the murders in Washington, DC outnumbered the killings in Iraq of our soldiers. 😕

not per capita

 

[Strk]

Every death by car accident, murder etc is reported; however, it is a local issue, so it is reported on local news stations. Iraq, on the other hand, is national and requires national attention.

 

[ReiAyanami]

teh julia roberts got twin dual baby set-up, tell EVERYBODY!!! :roll:

[/dailyshow]

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
Last year 42,643 people died in car accidents
17,013 were alcohol related(almost 40%)

source

16,503 murders and nonnegligent manslaughter cases reported in 2003 nationwide

source

Is it because their is no political agenda to follow up on what happens in the US, what effects all of us here? Is there no profit in that kind of death or gain to be had, or is it to hard to sensationalize death at or around the home?

I do not want to degrade the lifes lost oversea in any war, having been in the service myself I am proud of the job our soldiers are doing, and hope they come home safely when they are able, but it seems everywhere you look the most focus is on our losses in Iraq, when our losses at home due to stupidity, criminal intent, and neglect are much worse.

Comparing lives lost in an unnecessary invasion of choice with accident and alcohol abuse figures is ludicrous. The troops who are dying in accidents in Iraq aren't being listed by the Pentagon as combat deaths, and the combat deaths certainly are in no way accidents.

It's not like our troops in Iraq are getting drunk and crashing their Humvees. There is a huge difference between taking enemy fire and making a mistake behind the wheel or abusing alcohol and killing yourself or someone else in a motor vehicle accident.

As for murder it's one on one. And I guess you could use Yossarian's argument from Catch 22, but to me it's just not the same as the widespread, pre-planned destruction and death caused by war.

 

[chess9]

Judasmachine:

The State of Florida can't afford to properly test teenagers. If they started testing seniors, parents would need to make an appointment for a prospective child's driver's license when the mother discovers she is pregnant! I took my son over to get his Florida driver's license last week and there were about 70 people standing in line at 8 a.m.

Nonetheless, I think it is more important to test seniors than it is to give teenagers drivers' licenses. If we defer giving teens a license until they are 18-21 we reduce fatalities. If we test seniors we reduce fatalities. This seems like a no-brainer to me. But, most seniors here are strongly opposed to tighter licensing restrictions as are teenagers.

I assume you think teenagers need stricter licensing requirements as well, eh? 🙂

-Robert

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: theblackbox
Last year 42,643 people died in car accidents
17,013 were alcohol related(almost 40%)

source

16,503 murders and nonnegligent manslaughter cases reported in 2003 nationwide

source

Is it because their is no political agenda to follow up on what happens in the US, what effects all of us here? Is there no profit in that kind of death or gain to be had, or is it to hard to sensationalize death at or around the home?

I do not want to degrade the lifes lost oversea in any war, having been in the service myself I am proud of the job our soldiers are doing, and hope they come home safely when they are able, but it seems everywhere you look the most focus is on our losses in Iraq, when our losses at home due to stupidity, criminal intent, and neglect are much worse.

Comparing lives lost in an unnecessary invasion of choice with accident and alcohol abuse figures is ludicrous. The troops who are dying in accidents in Iraq aren't being listed by the Pentagon as combat deaths, and the combat deaths certainly are in no way accidents.

It's not like our troops in Iraq are getting drunk and crashing their Humvees. There is a huge difference between taking enemy fire and making a mistake behind the wheel or abusing alcohol and killing yourself or someone else in a motor vehicle accident.

As for murder it's one on one. And I guess you could use Yossarian's argument from Catch 22, but to me it's just not the same as the widespread, pre-planned destruction and death caused by war.

so death isn't death? why is it ludicrous. people make a big deal about how many people have died overseas, either because it helps their cause, or it's easy to sensationalize, while 40x that number die at home.

I guess the big difference is the soldiers volunteered, while the people here were helpless victims.

There is a huge difference between taking enemy fire and making a mistake behind the wheel or abusing alcohol and killing yourself or someone else in a motor vehicle accident.

Is there? When was the last time you took fire? When was the last time you were hit by a drunk driver or know someone that was. The only thing ludicrious is your perspective. Needless death is needless death, whereever it should happen.

Comparing lives lost in an unnecessary invasion

but then that says it all. someone elses death that supports your political idealogy weighs more then any other death.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: theblackbox


Comparing lives lost in an unnecessary invasion of choice with accident and alcohol abuse figures is ludicrous. The troops who are dying in accidents in Iraq aren't being listed by the Pentagon as combat deaths, and the combat deaths certainly are in no way accidents.

It's not like our troops in Iraq are getting drunk and crashing their Humvees. There is a huge difference between taking enemy fire and making a mistake behind the wheel or abusing alcohol and killing yourself or someone else in a motor vehicle accident.

As for murder it's one on one. And I guess you could use Yossarian's argument from Catch 22, but to me it's just not the same as the widespread, pre-planned destruction and death caused by war.

so death isn't death? why is it ludicrous. people make a big deal about how many people have died overseas, either because it helps their cause, or it's easy to sensationalize, while 40x that number die at home.

I guess the big difference is the soldiers volunteered, while the people here were helpless victims.

There is a huge difference between taking enemy fire and making a mistake behind the wheel or abusing alcohol and killing yourself or someone else in a motor vehicle accident.

Is there? When was the last time you took fire? When was the last time you were hit by a drunk driver or know someone that was. The only thing ludicrious is your perspective. Needless death is needless death, whereever it should happen.

Comparing lives lost in an unnecessary invasion

but then that says it all. someone elses death that supports your political idealogy weighs more then any other death.[/quote]

To oppose a part of what you are and to oppose a part of what you have done is sensationalism of a vocal justification to the manifestation of self realization of the aforementioned. Some of us grow out of it,,,some of us don't. 🙁

 

[BBond]

The powers that be want to keep the results of their policy failures out of sight. Some of us want the consequences of Bush's lies and his administration's failure to plan for the aftermath of this unprovoked aggression to be public knowledge, as it should be. Americans need to see what the results of the neocon's policies are, not rely on the propaganda they hear from the administration.

When we finally built a monument to the Americans who died in Vietnam it was a wall with all of their names engraved on it. This was our way of honoring them and remembering them. Hiding the fallen doesn't honor them. Hiding their names is the shameful product of Bush's political ideology, not mine. Bush wants to hide all of them because they are a reminder of the incompetence of his administration, and their reckless failure to plan for the consequences of their unnecessary aggression in Iraq.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
Americans need to see what the results of the neocon's policies are

America has already seen what the results of the Liberal policies are. That is why they have migrated towards voting for a change to support an ideology that is a bit more conservative..

The names of the fallen, among literally thousands of other venues, are available on this web-site. The notion that they are hidden is simply asinine.


Sensationalism of the fallen begets more fallen. This is the goal of the Iraqi insurgency. It is the only
possible way for our well intended goals to end in failure.

These were lessons learned in the viet-nam era.


Now again, when are you going to Iraq to join the insurgency?
😕

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: chess9
Judasmachine:

The State of Florida can't afford to properly test teenagers. If they started testing seniors, parents would need to make an appointment for a prospective child's driver's license when the mother discovers she is pregnant! I took my son over to get his Florida driver's license last week and there were about 70 people standing in line at 8 a.m.

Nonetheless, I think it is more important to test seniors than it is to give teenagers drivers' licenses. If we defer giving teens a license until they are 18-21 we reduce fatalities. If we test seniors we reduce fatalities. This seems like a no-brainer to me. But, most seniors here are strongly opposed to tighter licensing restrictions as are teenagers.

I assume you think teenagers need stricter licensing requirements as well, eh? 🙂

-Robert

Not so much teenagers. The leading cause of accidents with teens is simple inexperiance. I guess there is only one way for them to get experiance. We could make Driver's Ed a little more in depth and prolong the class. But no I don't suggest we annually test teens. I think if we are going to make any of this a priority we concentrate on those whose eyes and reflexes are starting to fail them. I've been run off the road twice on the way to school by elderly driving the wrong way on the freeway.

BTW I'll feel a little differant in about 35 years. 😉

 

[Infohawk]

Well, murders go on every year in this country... makes it less newsworthy.

Illegal occupations happen a _little_ less often. 😉