• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Thanks should go to Paul Campos for the column in which he points out the relatively minor threat from terrorism compared to other, more common dangers (“Nonsense about terrorism,” July 10).
He writes that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed approximately 3,000 people in New York and Washington, “A quarter-million were killed in car crashes. Around 200,000 were shot to death. Several thousand died of acute alcohol poisoning.”
This reminded me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a woman from Israel, during the peak of the intifada. When asked if she was fearful of suicide bombers, she said no because the chances of getting killed in a car accident were much greater, even in Israel, than getting killed by a terrorist bomber.
The same logic and statistics can be used to show that our involvement in the war in Iraq is no big deal. Far more people are being killed in the ways Campos mentions than in combat.
In fact, I’ll bet more young American men and women are dying in the United States than in Iraq. So, using Campos’ logic, we shouldn’t get exercised over the war. It is probably one of the cheapest wars in terms of casualties we have ever been engaged in.

Richard W. Postma, Littleton

READER COMMENTS

The terrorists are a serious threat, but statistically much smaller a threat then driving to the corner store.

If someone trying to restore a little sanity and balance gets you so worked up that you end by saying this is probably one of the cheapest wars, in terms of casualties, thereby mixing and comparing apples and orangutans, what would a really statistics laden article do to you?

does this mean that the all the liberal news outlets will now start a daily body count on young people killed on our roads here at home? I doubt it as it would not benefit them in their hate of Bush.

If we take the stats and look at them then Campos is correct. In terms of life and death this is a cheap war. It is a fact more people have died in criminal events and car accidents then murdered in Iraq.

It would definately not prove favorable in the MSM interests to point this out on the scale it needs to be. The left has a clear adgenda and anti military bias.

Those in politics who are power hungry do not want the good news from Iraq to be told. Fact people in Iraq are thankful, thier military and police forces are getting beter. New schools and hospitols are opened along with desalinization plants. Do we hear of this? No all we get is how the death toll of military members is riseing.

If we take the stats and look at them then Campos is correct. In terms of life and death this is a cheap war. It is a fact more people have died in criminal events and car accidents then murdered in Iraq.

It would definately not prove favorable in the MSM interests to point this out on the scale it needs to be. The left has a clear adgenda and anti military bias.

Those in politics who are power hungry do not want the good news from Iraq to be told. Fact people in Iraq are thankful, thier military and police forces are getting beter. New schools and hospitols are opened along with desalinization plants. Do we hear of this? No all we get is how the death toll of military members is riseing.

Because the media is not showing you on a daily basis the dead and wounded innocents in Iraq, you come up with drivel about how great things are going over there.

Get your heads out of the sand and try the BBC for a change, and hear from some REAL reporters who aren't muzzled by the Bush Admin spin doctors.

How about the 60-70 thousand innocents Iraqi men women and children who've lost their lives?
Can you imagine America being invaded and tens of thousands of people dying because another country is here to "help" us?
How about the 25,000 American wounded soldiers? Don't they count into this equation?

and i'm an Unafilliated voter who is sick of the lies lies lies...........and propaganda machine....

The most recent conservative estimate for CIVILIAN casualties in Iraq is more then 67,000.

Now, tell me again how this war is so "cheap" in terms of human suffering.

Also, talk to some of the parents of the more than 3,600 military personnel who have been killed, and tell them how great the war is going.

While you're at it -- would you explain to them the reason why thier sons and daughters died and what all this death has accomplished thus far.

Yesterday -- even Fox News reported that Al Qaeda is as strong as they have ever been (although Bush refuses to accept the fact).

( Sources: www.iraqbodycount.org and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289028,00.html )

This is in NO WAY support of the war, just a comment on the death totals. Cluefull writes that 67,000 civilians have been killed, in a 4 year war. That's 16,750 per year. By conservative estimations, according to a Stanford University study, 25,550 civilians were murdered under Saddam Hussein per year, or about 70 per day.

If we are just talking numbers of civilian casualties, this is an improvement over what it was. Statistically speaking of course.

It is a cheap war if you only look at the body counts; however, one of the definitions of casualty is: One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high. While fewer have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, many young men & women are coming back with permanent disabilities, both mental & physical (of course, after one comes back & is diagnosed with a mental disability like PTSD, the military is conveniently claiming it was a pre-existing condition - which is a little difficult for them to do when one comes back missing limbs - a frequent result of the IEDs). If you think this war is so damned cheap, I suggest you go to http://zfacts.com/p/447.html & watch the cost (as of FYI 2006, which ended in Sept 2006 - it is over 400M). In fact, with $440 billion already approved or requested, total funding for Iraq and the global war on terrorism could reach $811 billion by 2016. Suppose we were to take even a tenth of that and invest it in this country's infrastructure, like highways - or so-called welfare items like health (including cleaning up the current mess in VA hospitals), social security & education, or use it for research & development of alternative energy.

so who is killing all of the civillians? I dont believe it is our military driving car bombs around so dont blame us for what the idiots are doing over there. well all of you hate america folks will blame us no matter what anyway

Looks like both side kill civilians. Our side doesn`t mean to but they are just as dead.

Blame us? Never, we blame Bush.

Hate America? No, we just hate American fools.

Please get a new act, I don`t think even Hannity uses that one any more.

Just remember, war does not increase death. That statistic is one for one.

As for statistics, Mark Twain put it best:

"There's lies
There's damn lies,
And then there's statistics."

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Campos. He has already written a column in which he has declared a war against Iran a disastrous. How the hell does he know how something will turn out that hasn't even begun?

Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war in Iraq. Well, we haven’t lost the war in Iraq, but the political war about Iraq is being controlled by the left here in America. Reid also said that General Petraeus doesn’t know what’s happening on the ground in Iraq. That’s pretty funny considering Reid has not been to Iraq for about two years and Gen. Petraeus actually lives there. How the hell would Reid be qualified to know what is going on in Iraq or what Petraeus knows?

It makes little or no sense to listen to people like Harry Reid or Paul Campos because they do not know what they are attempting to tell you about. ‘Tis much better to learn from those who are actually there:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/657#more-657

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

More info from someone who is actually there and not sitting in Washington D.C or behind a desk at the Rocky Mountain News or "REAL" reporters from the BBC:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/635#comments

I just retired from the Air Force a few months ago, and I was in Iraq (at Balad and Baghdad) for four months last year.

Trust me -- things are NOT going well there for our troops, the Iraqi citizens, or the provisional government.

The surge is only a temporary fix and is not going to solve all the problems in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not even the main issue -- insurgents and sectarian violence between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds is what is causing all the death and mayhem there.

Bascially, we're caught in the middle of a huge civil war. We're using thousands of troops on the ground to "put out the small fires," but once we reduce our troop strength, those fires are going to light up the entire country again.

The only way to significantly reduce violence in Iraq is to divide the country into regions for the different religious sects or to allow one sect to dominate the others -- just like Saddam's Sunni minority did.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly