Traffic fatalities/Iraq fatalities !

[Murffieus]

Each year approximately 50,000 people die on the nations roads and highways----in Iraq less than 1,000 US soldiers have died each year. Yet just about every liberal newspaper in the nation has a daily running score of how many US soldiers have died this month, this year, or since the war started. To be concsistent -----why doesn't the national print media post the number of traffic fatalities on a daily basis?

Seems to me that by scoring the nation's traffic fatalities on a daily basis it would save lives----make people more conscientious when they drive. Also add some daily commentary with these figures as to why and how these deaths materialized----like use of cell phones while driving, DUI, speeding or what ever.

The fact that the liberal print media doesn't do this-----is because their agenda is NOT really to save lives-------but rather to daily tally Iraq deaths to arose the public and work on their psyche to oppose the war so GWB can't be successful there (the liberals HATE GWB).

The daily tallying of US soldier deaths can have no other purpose-----as it doesn't save lives like a similar tallying of traffic deaths would (along with explanation of how and why these traffic deaths are occuring)!

Even better yet-=---how about tallying on a daily basis the number of deaths each day, month from tobacco or drugs, that add up to millions of deaths a year -----to make people more aware of what their habits risks are?

[Mayor McCheese]

because although traffic fatalities are bad, theres not much our government can do.... with Iraq, theres a lot our government can do....


instead of posting ridiculous questions trying to bash liberals, why don't you open your eyes and ears and stop kissing our presidents rear end?

Liberal media DOES want to save lives, by getting the soldiers out of Iraq, it saves lives.. and the toll is showing everyone like you that US men are being killed for an unjust unwinnable war

and people do tally deaths from tobacco and drugs, have you ever seen those Truth commercials?  Come on man, are you this blind and so anti-anything that isn't Fox News to write something like this

your much more capable of making a better case as why liberals are everything that is evil

[Murffieus]

Well if the liberal media Really wants to save lives why don't they run daily tallies on traffic deaths,deaths from tobacco use and Drugs (make a big deal out of them)------after all there are many, many more of them each year -------that would call a great deal of attention to these killers and make people more cautious in their driving habits and in their tobacco/drug use ----this would save many, many lives ----many more lives than the 1,000 lost in Iraq!

The media desn't care about all that----nor do they care about the ethnic cleansing that will take place  if we leave Iraq prematurely where hundreds of thousands people would be killed. All the media cares about is lkeep GWB from winning the war so that a liberal gets elected in 2008.

[Mayor McCheese]

Well if the liberal media Really wants to save lives why don't they run daily tallies on traffic deaths,deaths from tobacco use and Drugs (make a big deal out of them)------after all there are many, many more of them each year -------that would call a great deal of attention to these killers and make people more cautious in their driving habits and in their tobacco/drug use ----this would save many, many lives ----many more lives than the 1,000 lost in Iraq!

The media desn't care about all that----nor do they care about the ethnic cleansing that will take place  if we leave Iraq prematurely where hundreds of thousands people would be killed. All the media cares about is lkeep GWB from winning the war so that a liberal gets elected in 2008.

if Republicans cared about saving lives why don't they intervene in Darfur... there are plenty of if, ands and buts, and like I said (maybe you didn't read what I posted)... there ARE things about cigarettes and alcohol killing people.  the Truth commercials, etc.... thats liberal media   

[Murffieus]

Darfur doesn't present a threat to our national interest----Iraq does----can't police the world with a volunteer army!

[tower912]

Too much money to be made from taxes and campaign contributions to ever truly go after tobacco and alcohol.   Plus, this would really tick off the libertarian wing of both parties.     

[jutaw22mu]

the problem with going to darfur is that eventually all the liberals would complain and call it unjust like they have with iraq.  they always throw out the darfur argument but they conviently forget the holocaust that was going on in iraq under saddam. 

[Mayor McCheese]

Darfur doesn't present a threat to our national interest----Iraq does----can't police the world with a volunteer army!

we sure are trying to play police.... but thats a different argument


to state your first argument, its a load of bullcrap to be quite frank, like I explained, your telling me we dont have enough advertisements about drunk driving and cigarrettes, can't stop people from drinking and driving, we can stop an un-just, un-winnable, horribly planned war.

[Murffieus]

Mayor----But the point is that it is a winnable war----need more troops----should have had more in the first place----you just don't want GWB to succeed----and in your heart you know that is a correct statement!

The alternative to not winning is unthinkable-----many, many, more lives lost in a bigger war down the road!

[tower912]

Murf, I think you are saying we needed to follow the Powell doctrine, or the advice of General Shineski (sp?) who advocated a force twice what we currently have.   This administration ignored one and fired the other, sending a chilling message to the rest of their senior commander that if they dissented, they, too would be fired.   So, this administration chose this war, chose the tactics to fight it, and if we dare point out that both their rationale and tactics were flawed and have led us to where we are, we are rooting for GWB to fail?   LOL.   A question for you.   Let us play let's pretend for a moment.   If Al Gore had won the recount in Florida and had done everything that  GWB has done and failed to do on terrorism, i.e. 4+ years in, no bin Laden, al Qaeda becoming more popular and receiving massive cash infusions from the Iraqi people, gone to war and all of the pre-war premises were inaccurate, would you by so sycophantically supporting HIM?   I wouldn't be.   I would be as angry at him or anyone who made these consistently boneheaded moves.   

[mu_hilltopper]

Winnable?  Maybe.  But until someone (Bush) proposes a new 5-10 year plan, and its $3-4 trillion dollar price tag, and a plan to stop our military from collapsing due to long deployments  -- it's not winnable.

Come up with an actual plan, with a realistic time-line, and honest costs, or get out of the kitchen.

[jutaw22mu]

just out of curiousity since i wasn't alive then, did we have a timeline during world war II or the korea war??  or the vietnam war, which i should remind you was started by a democrat...

[mu_hilltopper]

That's not some "Ah-ha!" type argument.  Of course we didn't.  But this war, and this enemy, is very different than all of those, and you know that.

Should we require a timeline to defeat terorrism?  No.  Should we have a timeline to how long we stay inside a civil war when our citizens now believe it wasn't worth it, believe they were drawn into a war under false pretenses, was poorly executed, and is unwinnable?  Yup.

("We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument in 3..2..1..)

[jutaw22mu]

im curious how you believe the war has been poorly executed.  i dont have any military experience so i would like to learn from a military perspective what we are doing wrong strategically and how we can execute better.

i think having a publicized timeline for withdrawl, created by politicians, would be pretty poor strategically.  maybe there is a timeline that only high ranking officials in the military know about, including the commander-in-chief.


and just to respond a little to tower.  if al gore had done everything W has done since 9-11 i would support him.  i think its our job to support the president regardless of political party.  i supported clinton and God knows all the horrible things he did.  however, i shudder to think what would happen if al gore had been in office instead.  likely no response, which probably would have caused this country greater harm.  at least we have bin laden on the run.  and its very easy to disappear off the face of the earth, how do we even know that bin laden is still in afghanistan? there are alot of excellent anti-America places to hide.

[rocky_warrior]

you just don't want GWB to succeed

I (for one) would love for him to succeed and get us the hell out of there.  Problem is, it's not going to happen during his term, and we may never succeed. The next president (regardless of party) doesn't want to take the heat for continuing the war, or pulling out. GWB made the bed, he should sleep in it.

[Murffieus]

Tower---if Al Gore would have done everything GWB did ----I would applaud him. Everyone----and I mean everyone thought Saddam had WMD----that includes Clinton, Sen Rockefeller, the ranking Dem on the house Intelligence committee, Tony Blair, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc etc.----they all were squarely behind the war.

When the intel is that strong on a guy who is no friend of the USA---you have to move!