redblueamerica.com

This really horrible knowing that there are more people inside the country used to kill one another rather than the war in Iraq. It would be shameful on the part of U.S. that we cannot implement that peace and lessen the crimes happening. Anyone see Obama on Jay Leno? The President went on the Tonight show to talk about the AIG bonuses, or how they spent the cash advances given to them courtesy of the American taxpayers. Needless to say, the American public and Congress were not amused. The President made assurances that the bill passed over the matter, HR 1586 won't set a precedent to tax who they see fit, and that other taxes will be devoted to education and health care.

Its called a typo Mr. Perfect / Mrs. CompletelyOnPoint, whoever, whatever you are.

Also, its "going to" not "gonna", redneck.

To anonymous (get a name) "thank you" poster:

I am not sure who you're thanking?

And, I realize I made an error - I put my POINT (my summation) at the end of the essay. I don't think most are making it to the end before the blood starts to boil.

I'm not comparing the two scenarios; I'm debunking the endless recitation of U.S. casualties as the barometer of whether the Iraqi engagement is a valid effort or not. The casualties is NOT the right way to assess the merits of staying or not. I'm not EVEN passing judgment on the validity of the effort, I'm just trying to devalue this constant body bag count as the primary reflection of legitimacy or illegitimacy. By body bag counts, Chicago is a disaster at the moment - no kidding: IT ISN'T THE POINT! That IS my point!

at least it lets the soldiers do their job...its better than paying them for nothing.

The Point: Keep perspective!

The Argument: Media outlets have unendingly updated us with daily count of US deaths in Iraq (the actual super "narrow" framing!)as if it means its obvious it is a quagmire/disaster - when in fact those numbers often have numerical levels rivaling our own cities here at home.

And as far as IRAQI death counts - anyone who thinks those death counts won't SKYROCKET if we left today has a poor understanding of the situation and a poorer knowledge of history, and as Iraqi deaths were seeminmgly never meaningful (apparently) to us before we "unleashed" death into these region (as implied by responders)I'm not addressing that aspect. You can, I won't stop you. Start your own Iraqi death count blog where you compare the numbers of gassed Kurds horribly killed by Saddam, the raped murdered women tortured by his sons, the innocent shoppers blown to bits by those suicide fanatics specially targeting them, and please include the slaughter that would inevitably ensue if we the U.S. pulled out to today and ceased protecting them.

To Mathman:

Suuure dude; N Korea is one giant "enviable" scenario. Hey, weren't they just busted setting up nukes for Syria?

To anonymous "attractive but false" guy:

Holy --, are you the classic bleeding-heart liberal. "the violence in Chicago is one that has been borne out of the socioeconomic situation and history of the city"

I just spent two decades living around the Humbolt Park neighborhood of Chicago and you don't have a freakin idea what you're talking about. I didn't own my home and I didn't have wealth, but I never got a gun and shot up my neighborhood; because I never bought into any bull machismo selfish insanity. There's jobs to be had in Chicago. And MOST folks there are blue collar working class. This violence is about selfish punks, period. And you must be a screaming racist if you think all these minorities are so broke they can't even help but shoot their neighbors. That's not reality

First off, a lot of people would use your statistics and argue that, precisely because we have so much problems in our own cities, why are we spending billions in other people's countries?

Second, the violence in Chicago is one that has been borne out of the socioeconomic situation and history of the city and the nation, not as a reaction to unlawful occupation. If the U.S. "pulled out" of Chicago, the violence would still be there.

But the motive of the violence in Iraq is precisely for the U.S. to move out of their sovereign nation. All the attacks have an overarching and unifying goal whose main targets are American soldiers, the conqueror they wish to be rid of. This is in contrast to the violence in Chicago which is just a compilation of unrelated individual conflicts that does not have a unifying theme of kicking out the U.S. government.

The violence started and escalated during the occupation as a reaction to it, not from time immemorial. You might bring up the Sunni-Shiite conflict, but where has it translated to guerrilla warfare anywhere else in the Middle East?

King David:

For comparisons to make any sense -- to be valid -- they have to be, oh, I don't know, comparable.

Once again: Comparing the number of U.S. citizens killed in Chicago versus the number of U.S. citizens killed in Iraq is so narrowly drawn as to be misleading. And again: It ignores Iraqi deaths, as if the only thing matters about our presence in Iraq is us. That's more than a little arrogant.

Furthermore: We don't really have any choice but to be in Chicago since, oh that's right, Chicago is part of America. Realistically, there will be no secession of Chicago from the United States, so there's no choice involved. But invading Iraq was a choice. Staying in Iraq is a choice. So, once again, the comparison isn't really valid.

Finally: There weren't terrorist attacks and occasional flare-ups into civil wars in Iraq until we, yes, invaded. Don't get me wrong: There were other bad things going on. But we -- yes -- unleashed the current round of violence. Replacing one set of bad circumstances with another set of bad circumstances that is also bad for us doesn't seem, in my opinion, to be a net positive. We shouldn't let our good intentions blind us to the negative consequences of our actions. Otherwise we'll stumble into disaster after disaster.

The funny thing is, I think there is a case to be made for staying in Iraq. I don't buy it, but I understand and even respect it. Pretending that everything is hunky dory, though, isn't part of that case.

To Joel,
We are not occupying Iraq. We are not forcing the populace to respond subserviently to our reign. We are battling anarchists (quite probably primarily funded externally), who are hell-bent on preventing Iraq from progressing as a modern country with self determined leadership. We are defending the unarmed people in the streets, as best we can. I have no patience for trying to paint the US as a country bullying the people of Iraq. Without question those who strap bombs to their bodies to enter the marketplace are the ones attempting to bully the tradesmen and teachers and retailers and children of Iraq. We could leave this instant, and we would gladly, if those seeking chaos in this region which cease their unconscionable agenda.

The week of April 16-23, 2008

City of Chicago: 12 US citizens killed
nation of Iraq: 11 US citizens killed

Talk about all the apples and other fruit you'd like, try and divert reference to how many US citizens LIVED proportionately, or however else you want to try and redirect the numbers above; They are a fact. You can't change it, though I sense you desperately wish you could.

The fact that Kuwaitis and Iraqi citizens were killed by Saddam,Iranian militia, or any other Middle Eastern entity seem to mean nothing to those who believe the discovery of weapons of mass destruction is the ONLY excuse for US involvement in the realm, illustrates that internal killing amongst Middle Eastern factions isn't supposed to be meaningful to us. So why would I count Iraqi deaths in a comparison pointing out American loss of life as the primary concern of the anti-war crowd. And I love your tempered use the word "unleashed". So if an opportunist radical madman sees a chance to persuade a young woman to blow herself up for the purpose of killing other innocent civilians in order to instill anarchy and fear; that's our fault. We "unleashed" it. We are such bad people, it's amazing.

To Mr. anonymous,
when did that discussion become about the "likelihood" of being killed. These are deaths referenced. Real American deaths. 12 in Chicago, 11 in the nation of Iraq. "Likelihood" is not the point I'm making. I'm talking about American people who were actually killed in an act of violence by another.

To Chief 28,
thank you for trying to understand my call for perspective. I'm very frustrated that in this handful of comments, mostly I find arguments resisting the attempt to find perspective. Wouldn't it be terrible if we stopped being hysterical and tried to appreciate the difficulties of taking any involved action in realms of the globe beset with violence. To be so dedicated to hysterical defensiveness is beyond my imagination.

At the risk of being pummeled...

It is a debatable point that we are "occupying" Iraq, since the elected government has asked us to be there. (I know the argument...we installed the gov't, etc.)

Also, you know what they say about statistics...but I do agree that it is not an apples to apples comparison. But I also agree that we do have to put some intelligent perspective behind this debate as well. I don't think there are any right or wrong answers unfortunately.

Lets not forget that every person serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else around the world is a volunteer, and reenlistment rates for those in theater are consistently high. So to King Caul's argument, there are many complex issues (including nobility and legitimacy) that have to be taken into account.

Finally, as King says, "the death toll in Iraq is historically nominal by relevant measure" is true, but again must be put into perspective due to the advances in warfare, firepower, tactics, strategy, etc.

Because raw numbers tell us nothing if populations are not equivalent.

Population of Chicago: ~2.8 million
Coalition soldiers in Iraq: ~300000

12/2.8 million = 4.3 x 10-6

11/300000 = 3.6 x 10-5

A coalition soldier had an order of magnitude's greater likelihood of being killed in Iraq than a citizen of Chicago being killed in Chicago.