The drunk driving deaths are based on a per last year. The iraq deaths are a total since the war started..... Lets sit back and ask.... Why are we against our troups protecting our country...if we are upset about our people dieing then put more effort into the drunk driving deaths and let our troops protect our country...
Here are the facts based on statistics for a recent year presented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): 42,116 total fatalities involved 57,480 drivers, of which 7,400 were known to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit. Thus, 12.87% (or 7,400) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes were legally intoxicated. Therefore, drunk drivers were associated with about 5,422 traffic fatalities.
As of Monday, Feb. 5, 2007, at least 3,098 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilian
2007-02-06 08:50:21 · 7 answers · asked by scubastieb@yahoo.com 2 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
I heard that now New Orleans is the murder capitol of the nation. Maybe nancy pelosi should lead a fact-finding mission and sponsor a resolution to pull out.
Anybody wonder if the NAG who was yelling "pull out now" at the rent-a-mob gathering last week was talking to billie-bob clinton? She seemed to want hillary to pay attention.
2007-02-06 09:00:02 · answer #1 · answered by boonietech 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like the previous guy above me said, you need to compare the relative number of deaths versus the people involved. The war zones are hot areas, and they are dying in very high numbers, compared to the death rates for drinking and driving. Now, that being said, if you got them to be recruited and shipped them all overseas, do you think they would still keep out of trouble? Their core personalities that make them drink and drive would also make them reckless while in a war zone, and they would probably cause people around them to be un-necessarily killed - just like if they were drinking and driving. So, in the end, I dont think they should even go overseas, and it's better if they shy away from serving - that is probably saving many lives right now. I shudder to think what will happen is a hard draft is instituted. There will probably be many many more deaths in the war zones, all from friendly fire and accidents. We dont need that.
2016-05-24 00:40:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm for the war and against DUI but look at the facts the US military have body armor and armored vehicles the poor people that are killed by DUI drivers do not so basically your saying bring our boys home and post them all our local bars or every one should start driving apc`s (armored personnel carriers)
2007-02-06 09:18:11 · answer #3 · answered by vet 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or the Philadelphia situation...406 murders last year in that city, we are losing there...time to "pull out" of philadelphia....let the people handle that civil war, instead we should raise taxes and play midnight basketball
2007-02-06 08:54:11 · answer #4 · answered by voiceofreason 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
your point is ?????
btw, we arent against our troops protecting out country - thats just conservative limbaugh/o'reilly type hype attempting to describe the situation in a neat and orderly fashion to promote their right wing hyperbole.
what we are against is how we were deceived into believing that iraq posed an immenent threat to our way of life as a means to justify invading them
2007-02-06 09:02:39 · answer #5 · answered by ncblue66 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I am against both. Both deserve my attention, and both get it!
2007-02-06 08:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by Philip Kiriakis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Point made
2007-02-06 08:54:09 · answer #7 · answered by Tikimaskedman 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋