This is great... I get so tired of people going on about so many soldiers dying in the war, but it is more dangerous on US highways. Now don't get me wrong I don't like hearing about US service members dying (heck I am one), but it drives me nuts when people (mostly liberals) go on about the death toll being too high, but you don't see them wanting to crack down on drunk drivers even harder than they already do. They don't call on a solution to drunk driving like they call for a solution to Iraq. This is just one of those interesting facts that people don't think about. The streets of Iraq are more dangerous to Iraqis than to US personnel, just like the US streets are just as dangerous a place to us.
I don't see this as comparing apples to oranges, dead Americans are dead Americans, because of those 17,000+ killed in 2006, these numbers include children that never even had a chance. They didn't ask to be put in a situation where they would be killed, sometimes even in more gruesome ways than a gun shot wound. American service members volunteered and signed a contract understanding that they may be put in harms way to defend their country and its Constitution. People that die at the hands of drunk drivers are victims, service members that die from war are casualties. I know I may be sounding a little harsh hear, but how is it where you die different? Some folks go out to work knowing they could die today, others get blindsided by it.
2007-08-01 08:12:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by JASiege 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
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.
2007-08-01 07:40:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by MrKnowItAll 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
These are 2 quite different problems.
I have been sober for over 25 years and speak at high schools about the dangers of drinking (not just underage drinking). I believe in strict laws against driving under the influence. Sometimes it is a growing up issue, sometimes it is an substance abuse issue but always a crime. These are things that need continued deterrents and stiffer laws.
The Iraq war for profit is an entirely different thing. Those brave soldiers, sub-contractors and civilians have died for greed. The lack of (or manipulated) intelligence is frightening, the lies to congress and the American people have been staggering. The torture of innocents has been criminal and an embarrassment to our nation.
The lives of our loved ones are to be protected. I believe we should do everything to prevent all of these deaths. But entering into a war on false grounds is clearly worse.
2007-08-01 07:40:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Follow the money 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
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)
2016-05-20 01:02:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The two are very different. One response tried to say 3600 deaths compared to 360,000 deployed. Well that is 3,600 over how many years.Their has been way more than 360,000 soldiers deployed. But the reality is that your chances of paying the ultimate sacrifice are much lower in this war vs any other war in history. I will say that if we would forget world opinion and just clean house we could finish this. But when you try to please the world by being a kinder and gentler army we soldiers die. I have been there it can be a scary place and some of us will pay the price to keep our liberal friends alive. And if one of these times it is me then I will know I did what I could to keep my fellow Americans safe.
2007-08-01 08:18:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by scout2116 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because drunk driving isn't slandered all across ever single news station. Sure once a week or so, you see a minute long segment about how someone was killed by a drunk driver, but that's it. All we hear about is the Iraq war, so people become ignorant to other things. I don't blame the people either. I blame it on the media.
2007-08-01 07:32:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Absolute numbers are not the only measurement.
3,600 (total deaths) out of 360,000 (total deployed individuals) is 1%.
50,000 DUI-related deaths out of 200,000,000 drivers is 0.025% or 40 times less by percentage.
Also, add the number of permanently injured in Iraq and for drunk-driving, and the number are even more interesting.
2007-08-01 07:33:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
Very true, it doesn't even compare. Also try looking up the amount of people killed by illegal aliens every year. This doesn't even come close to comparisons either.
2007-08-01 07:32:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
You make an excellent point. You should be proud to fight for your country, not that you drove drunk and made it home safe & w/out a ticket after the bar closed! & both are voluntary (military & driving drunk)!!
2007-08-01 07:31:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
3⤋
I totally agree with everything you said!!
2007-08-01 13:07:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋