Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on September 13, 2004, 09:35:56 AM
-
Isn't it strange how the loss of over 1000 US Soilders in Iraq gains little media coverage compared to Hurricanes,Who did what in Vietnam (who cares?) and of course Clintons Heart Operation.
Just been a strange few weeks of news. I'm sure Bush is pleased about this as the last thing he wants is bad news from Iraq.
Lucky Ivan is on the way to keep the media busy for a few more days.
...-Gixer
-
Your kidding, right?
-
Gixer, Isn't it strange how your perception differs from reality?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/1000.fallen.ap/
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/nyc-breslinspks0803,0,3269214.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/21536.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1299528,00.html
For the following two days after that number was hit, our major news medias had this as the top story.
Earth to Gixer, your perception is different from reality.
Maybe it was from the lack of huge protests that your perception is misaligned?
-
No not really, we hardly had any coverage here (CNN,ABC,FOX) at all of Iraq comapred to the constant covereage of hurricanes and Clintons heart condition.
Unless of course I turned to BBC World.
Maybe it was different coverage over there?
...-Gixer
-
(http://www.sportfishingbc.com/IMAGES/downrigger2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.sportfishingbc.com/IMAGES/downrigger2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
No not really, we hardly had any coverage here (CNN,ABC,FOX) at all of Iraq comapred to the constant covereage of hurricanes and Clintons heart condition.
Unless of course I turned to BBC World.
Maybe it was different coverage over there?
...-Gixer
You probably should have specifed "My little island" then. ;)
-
Of course! We're all tuned in on arizona news! ;)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Of course! We're all tuned in on arizona news! ;)
Results 1 - 10 of about 881,000 for 1000 soldiers. (0.14 seconds)
-
Errr you lost me there. Or have you finaly become a full bot and are telling me how long it took you to parse that answer???
-
Why does the 1000th matter more than the 999th or 723rd?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Why does the 1000th matter more than the 999th or 723rd?
J_A_B
Because the media is retarded.
Because people love to hear about carnage and because 1000 is a round *Gasp* number where 700 is not.
Ever notice how gas costs $1.99 and 9/10ths of a cent? Because to the average moron, thats ALOT cheaper than $2 bucks a gallon.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Why does the 1000th matter more than the 999th or 723rd?
J_A_B
It matters because people like patterns. They like round figures. People live by patterns.
But of course that 1000th soldier doesn't matter as much as the first 100 because everyone is used to the idea of dead soldiers now. Everyone that is except the relatives and his comrades. Except of course his comrades may be used to casualties by now and he doesn't matter as much as the first casualty their unit suffered. They might even think; 'Thank God it wasn't me'. That's how they cope with the situation.
Of course he doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things because like the rest of us he was expendable for the greater cause. Like every footsoldier that ever died on the battlefield for every cause that his leaders decided was worth dying for.
We say we will remember him but we won't because we don't know who he is. We'll remember them all in a abstract way. 'They died in the war'. But as number 1000 won't be the last we will quickly forget to remember him. Perhaps only the last man down will be remembered.
No, mentioning the casualities and the quantities only matters right now for various reasons. Some people become uncomfortable with the figures because they support the war and the reality of dead soldiers is not what they want to hear. Some don't like it because it might hurt their candidtate. They salute their dead soldiers but wish it didn't get so much publicity. They won't like what I've written because it's not what they want to read.
Others use the figures to justify themselves. War is bad and that's the proof. They salute the dead soldiers but are glad if it helps their candidate or cause. They don't support the war but offer no real alternative. They won't like what I've written because it's not what they want to read.
The truth is everyone pays lip service to dead soldiers and use them for their cause. But at the end of day it's only the living that count, soldiers or civilian.
In the end the one thousandth soldier will only exist as a fading photograph and dimming memory in a loved one's heart.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Isn't it strange how the loss of over 1000 US Soilders in Iraq gains little media coverage compared to Hurricanes,Who did what in Vietnam (who cares?) and of course Clintons Heart Operation.
Just been a strange few weeks of news. I'm sure Bush is pleased about this as the last thing he wants is bad news from Iraq.
Lucky Ivan is on the way to keep the media busy for a few more days.
...-Gixer
Maybe because the Democrats and media predicted 10,000 in the first year and they have been disappointed.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Results 1 - 10 of about 881,000 for 1000 soldiers. (0.14 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,190,000 for hurricane frances. (0.37 seconds)
of course, at most 60 of them have any real relevence to anything, ever...
-
There has been continuous coverage of the deaths of service men and women throughout this war Gixer. 1000 isn't some magical number and the 1000th to die was no more significant than the first.
Perhaps you are looking for some satisfaction or justification in your quest to ridicule the actions of the United States?
-
Originally posted by JBA
Maybe because the Democrats and media predicted 10,000 in the first year and they have been disappointed.
Source?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/e837174ca3856d1cc1256c70003e48d2?OpenDocument
"Possible deaths on all sides during a 'conventional' conflict and the following 3 months range from 48.000 to 261,000" (http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2002/Medact-cost-12nov.pdf)
The dems were gathering their numbers from this website (and others) during the time up to war, Sandman.
Edit: Just surfing, there are a ton of references out there Sandman. You had to have been very drunk not to see that in the media during the time up to war. Here is another:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2071530/#ContinueArticle
-
Still scoring points using dead men everyone?
It's quite likely that over 20,000 people mostly Iraqis have died in the war and it's aftermath. I hope they all died for something worthwhile. Maybe they did, maybe in the long run it will save lives but no one knows or can prove it. The dead will stay dead and have no access to a bulletin board.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The dems were gathering their numbers from this website
Yeah... er... okay... I'll try to believe you... I'll try really hard. Attribution?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://Edit: Just surfing, there are a ton of references out there Sandman. You had to have been very drunk not to see that in the media during the time up to war. Here is another:[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2071530/#ContinueArticle
Evidently, I'm not drunk enough to see "10,000" in the first year...
Is it possible to make better predictions this time around? It may be, but not with a single number or narrow range. Based on available methodologies, the likely numbers of U.S. military personnel killed in a future war to overthrow Saddam Hussein could plausibly range anywhere from roughly 100, in the event of little fighting, to 5,000
Seems that Slate wasn't too far off the mark (albeit, the mark was pretty damn big...).
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Perhaps you are looking for some satisfaction or justification in your quest to ridicule the actions of the United States?
Don't be so fuggin paranoid.....
Paranoia Boards that way---------------------------------------->>>>>
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There has been continuous coverage of the deaths of service men and women throughout this war Gixer. 1000 isn't some magical number and the 1000th to die was no more significant than the first.
Perhaps you are looking for some satisfaction or justification in your quest to ridicule the actions of the United States?
No it's just interesting why the media spends so much time going over the vietnam debate rather then current issues.
Watching the BBC World a few nights back and they had a very good and balanced debate about the so called "War On Terror" and whether the world is better or worse off because of it and Bush. Made a nice change with good arguments from all sides and with comments from people all over the world calling,faxing,emailing in.
Certinly alot better then the usual short sighted affairs on Fox where they get in a couple of retired generals to talk about how well the war is going and that they killed another 30 militants with a precission bomb strike in some suburb. I don't know who believes that kind of garb.
...-Gixer
-
News is product, one must move inventory.