No one is claiming that it's safer in Iraq than driving in California.
The point is that the "loss" to America, which is related to the
population has a whole, is similar, actually, to the loss of Americans
on the roads each year in a small state like the state of Washington.
California loses, certainly, more Americans each year on the roads than
have been lost in the entire Iraq operation.

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Fact is, more people die on the highways of California alone EACH
YEAR than have died in Iraq.

Not even close. What you mean is, more people die annually in motor
vehicle collisions in California (population, 37 million) than American
military personnel have been killed in the fighting in Iraq since Pres.
Dimwit invaded - from a force that has maybe averaged 150,000.

It's clearly more dangerous to be fighting a war in Iraq than it is
driving on roads in California. Beyond the danger, what's your point?

Tell Nicklas, it didn't seem so clear to him. But that's just the sort
of right-wing butchering of statistics that we've seen all along in
justifying the mess in Mesopotamia.

No one is claiming that it's safer in Iraq than driving in California.
The point is that the "loss" to America, which is related to the
population has a whole, is similar, actually, to the loss of Americans
on the roads each year in a small state like the state of Washington.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

David Johnston wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:16:48 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Aug 20, 12:51 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Bringing the Americans back from Iraq won't end the bad things
happening
there to Iraqis.

Which is not an American problem.

I think the problems in the Middle East are an American problem because
the Middle East is where the threat of bin Ladenism comes from and that
threat is clearly a threat to America.

There is no thing as Bin Ladenism and even if there
were it would be a result of US meddling in the politics
of Arab countries.

"Bin Ladenism" didn't even take hold in Egypt or Algeria. It is no more
a threat to the United States than McVeighism. But you can never
underestimate the power of ignorance, bigotry and fear among the
American people.

Republicans are not driven by hope or optimism,
but paranoia and hatred.

How can we be paranoid about a real threat that was seen graphically on
9/11? I don't hate anyone. I've consistently stated my views and they
never include any hate. I've also counselled against "revenge", BTW.

I don't see the same level of fear about the Oklahoma City bombing. Or
about lung cancer or heart disease, which kill many more Americans every
year than "Islamist terrorism." That's how you can be paranoid.

I don't see the same level of "concern" from you leftwingers for the
40,000+
people killed in the US every YEAR on our highways. That's more than
10 times
the total number of dead from Iraq, Turncoat.

Doesn't seem to me that the existence of traffic accidents is
avoidable.

1) THEY came to America on 9/11 and killed 3000 of us.

They? But Bush has killed more Americans than that by invading Iraq.
Not to mention the numbers maimed.

How many Americans did FDR kill and maim after Pearl Harbor? Your
argument is silly.

Congress declared war on Japan because they attacked us, then on
Germany and Italy after they declared war on us. No fairy tales
about WMDs were necessary.

What was the threat of Italy to the United States? During WWII, the only
country that tried to invade France and couldn't budge the French
troops even an inch were the Italians.

Italy declared war on the U.S.

That's what
prompted the directed response. So don't claim that the war against
terrorism is "avoidable".

Where was the war against terrorism when McVeigh struck Oklahoma City?
They killed a lot of Americans that day.

McVeigh was caught, tried, convicted and executed. What more do you
want? A police response worked against him and his "followers". A police
only response against bin Laden didn't work. Refute that. You cannot.

When was a "police only" strategy tried on bin Laden? Bush didn't even
have any evidence to get him extradicted from Afghanistan.

Extradited? There was no legitimate government in Afghanistan, you
fruitbat.

OK, now you're ignoring the Taliban because it doesn't suit your
ideology.

2) There is no reason for the number of traffic deaths in America each
year. It happens because we let drunk drivers go, because we refuse to
make trucks pay for the damage to the roads and the risk they bring to
driving commensurate with reality, because we seek high mileage and not
maximum safety, etc.

It kills more Americans than terrorism, why is a war on driving
avoidable?

Driving is something that Americans want to do. I don't mind a war on
drunk driving or a war on dangerous driving or a war on the losses
caused by accidents while driving.

When does the bombing start?

Get bombed, don't drive.

Exactly. So what's wrong with a purely metaphorical "war on terrorism"?

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:37:05 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

David Johnston wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:15:33 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

David Johnston wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Doesn't seem to me that the existence of traffic accidents is
avoidable.

1) THEY came to America on 9/11 and killed 3000 of us. That's what
prompted the directed response. So don't claim that the war against
terrorism is "avoidable".

Iraq is not "terrorism".

Iraq is a country in the Middle East that needs to improve itself

Needs to improve _itself_ is the operative word. Yes life would be
better if Iraq was a stable democracy. It's just a little hard to
believe that stable democracy can be forced on a country that doesn't
believe in it.

You think they don't believe in it?

Yes.

You think they should do it all

alone?

I think American support in the middle east is downright
counterproductive because it increases opposition.

What do you expect to happen when you propel a hundred million people
a day in independantly piloted vehicles at speeds of 60 to 75 miles
per hour together?

I know that most of the deaths, more that half, are due to people who
are drinking and driving. That should be made uncool.

I'll let the committee that controls coolness know.

I know that rally

racing didn't have a fatality in the US for decades.

Add up the participants in all those races for all that time, and it
wouldn't be more than a small fraction of the number of people, mostly
far less skilled people, who clog the roads every day.

I wonder why they

could go nearly 100 mph on the same roads and not die yet Americans die
there all the time at much slower speeds. I've concluded it has a lot to
do with not building cars that protect occupants by retaining the
integrity of the passenger space. I think that happens if you integrate
rollcage systems into the design of the car itself.

True. The difference of course is that cars being deathtraps is the
pre-existing status quo.