Actually, I do blame the media for the fact that the expected casualty rate in Iraq has ever been considered zero.
Is that reasonable? Was it ever reasonable? Hell no. It was only reasonable if we never put a sinlge boot on the ground, and if EVERYTHING went AS PERFECTLY AS POSSIBLE. With any deployment of this size, we were going to have casualties just because. Start with the problems that always exist in life. (accidents, overdoses, suicides, someone snapping.) These would be true if the were deployed to Michigan. Add to that the inevitable crime, bad feelings, and revenge motives that surround any military deployment (whether it is Germany, the Philipines, or Hawaii) Add to that with the religious and cultural issues (terrorism) with a deployment to the middle east. It is dangerous in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and those countries are completely locked down. Compound that with the overthrow of a totalitarian regime, and the inevitable anarchy that results (look at Yugoslavia, Russia. This should have been expected) Then raise that due to the fact that we are still actually fighting a war. Zero casualties? How the heck could anyone have believed that? On 4/16/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how about this "the media only reports the bad stuff" argument? To > me it's crap because it comes down to expectations. > .... > The expected amount of causalities in Iraq is zero, and it's not. And > the media should be reporting that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204371 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
