News-Record.com

Mr. Sartwell, you are correct in saying that the media has made a big deal about the 3,000th soldier dying in Iraq. I have no reason to dispute your figures on the murder rate in New York City.

However, these two statistics don't tell the whole story. First, the murders in New York City are out of eight million people. The number of troops in Iraq is roughly 150,000. So the chance that any given soldier in Iraq will die is much higher than any given citizen of New York City.

Second, you don't mention Iraqi deaths at all. A study by Johns Hopkins University estimates that between 420,000 and 790,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war. CNN puts the number of Iraqi deaths at about 650,000. That's quite a few more than murder victims in New York City over the same time, isn't it?

Am I saying that American murder victims are less important than dead soldiers? No. Am I saying that the lives of Americans are worth less than the lives of Iraqis? No. Am I saying that there isn't a legitimate problem with crime in New York City and elsewhere in the United States? No. I simply find it a bit disingenuous to imply, "Well, more people are dying in New York City than in Iraq." That simply is not the truth.

Using your logic Jim why should we get excited about the 148 or so that Saddam killed and was hanged for. Probably more were killed by crime in Iraq in the same period. You should have been on his defense team. "More people have died so Saddam shouldn't fry!"

3000 is a milestone. A number to help us get our heads around the cost of this enterprise. It all comes down to cost/benefit. America will pay the cost if the benefit is worth it.

I think the point might be made that these lives were lost needlessly. Just as FDR wasn't blamed for the military lives lost in WWII because the cause was seen as just and necessary. Iraq is seen as unnecessary and even counterproductive to American interest.

In short the benefits that we gain by being in Iraq isn't worth 3000 lives. That's the importance of the number.

I say we pull out of NY and redeploy in Albany.

Also Jim, the lamestream media likes to toot it's horn about how "the war in Iraq has lasted longer than WWII", but they 'forget' to compare the casualties of US troop loss in Iraq as compared to the second WW...of course they are vigilant about reporting the "Iraqi civilian death toll" as around 800,000 or so.

20 years from now, I wonder if the deaths will be broken up into 2 sections: Operation Iraqi Freedom(pre-mission accomplished), and Operation Enduring Freedom (post-mission accomplished)

Here are the death totals as reported by the DoD
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Did just a little research, will count on JDR for better coverage. Mine shows fewer numbers than the lte. One article says that most murders were people who knew each other. Not justifying any murder, but I want to know what is the point of the lte. I think the parents of a child killed in Iraq think that one death is too many.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20060428_HOMICIDE_MAP.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/28/Worldandnation/NY_murders_at_40_year.shtml

One other major difference in folks in any state being killed and those in Iraq is Bush did not send any of the murdered folks into a foreign country to fight someone else's battles like he did our young people. The people murdered in the US are victims of senseless crimes perpetrated by other people living in the US. Our soldiers are sent to their deaths in another country by the senseless decision of the commander-in-chief.

"The media are about to ram down our throats that the 3,000th soldier has been killed while serving in Iraq. "

Ram it down our throats? How dare that nasty LAMEstream LIEburul media remind us of the sacrifices of our soldiers! HOW DARE THEY?!?!

No, Denizen.

How dare they shamelessly use it as a political agenda/wedge issue?

Bubba,
What a concept you have. Using facts as a political wedge issue. Wow!

I have to agree with DoubleD, Bubba (not that you care), but the Prize for Shameless Use of Political Wedge Issues ... goes to ...

(hint, not the lame stream newies)

Speaking of LAME...what a lame and moronic letter. How shameful to belittle the number who have died in Iraq...for NOTHING, absolutely nothing. So we got rid of an evil dictator, why him and not the hundreds of equally evil rulers?????

If I had a child who had died for morons like Bush and neocon and Bubba and the letter writer, I would be up in arms. I know parents and families try to say they died protecting our freedoms and whatever makes them feel better. I certainly don't blame them for trying to make some logic out of their child's senseless death. They should realize however that their child, parent, or sibling died for the unknown motives of rich old men.

NanP:

I disagree with a subtilely - thinking Bush 43 really did go into this with good intent. He was poorly informed - those he listened to had the agenda, and he lacked both the natural curiosity (to dig deeper) and the good sense to check-out what he was being told be Cheney and Rummy and Wolfy, all backed by Rove assuring him the American people were behind him - as proved by the 2004 election which was a damm shame 'cause it was not too late then to do something.

Think about it - he came out of the 2004 election - beating a zero-competition opponent but only by the skin of his teeth. Instead of saying - "Dam that was close - and against a no-body; maybe I should see what the rumble is about."

Instead he claimed "Political Capital", ignored the constant degrade in Iraq, leaving it in flames as he embarked down a totally new path (Social Security).

If he'd looked around, perhaps he'd of taken THEN the steps he's taking NOW. Two years too later, and possibly too-late period. Even George Will agrees with me.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/01/07/then_and_now

Looking at his action over the past 5 years, and his lack of success in private life - I sense Bush 43 is a simple and trusting man who put his trust in the wrong people.

I also think GWB now smells poop in his pants.

I doubt we have to worry about this paper hyping up military deaths too much.

Guilford County has more casualties in Iraq, than any other county in our state (even Mecklenburg, Wake, and Cumberland)...and this paper still tries to keep it a secret.

http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx

the last sentence of the lte sums it up.
which is harder to smuggle into america?cocaine or c-4??

Sums up what and what does you question have to do with anything? In answer to your question...who knows? We only know who we catch smuggling..we don't know how many get in.

"which is harder to smuggle into America? cocaine or c-4??"

Go into any bad section of town & you'll be accosted .

"Hey bro' got C-4: really fine blow bro.. fresh off tha' boat. Righteous stuff. You got stumps you need this. Hey man don't walk away! This stuff will blow you away!"

Honestly the way our borders are, you can sneak anything in. I've never heard of any C-4 being smuggled in. Cocaine I have heard gets in occasionally.

What is c-4?

Carol- basically plastic explosive.wii:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29

"I've never heard of any C-4 being smuggled in. "

Demand's thankfully not as great as with narcotics. Nor is the markup, I guess. Should demand become present, you can be sure that a seller will exploit the market.

Free markets. Gotta love 'em.

Out of the thousands of troops killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, who did most of the killing?

nitpicker, you know as well as anyone that most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by other Iraqis. I think Mr. Sartwell is wondering why the 3,000 US soldiers who died in Iraq get more attention than the 3,600 murder victims in New York last year. However, I also suspect he is trying to deflect attention away from those 3,000 deaths. It is still a lot more likely that a soldier in Iraq comes home in a body bag than a New Yorker ends up in the coroner's lab.

BB: From the link I posted above. Don't know where the letter writer got his numbers. I, like you, will take my chances in NYC.

Murder in New York: Killers and Their Victims in the Five Boroughs

Between 2003 and 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. Men and boys were responsible for 93 percent of the murders; their victims tended to be other men and boys; and in more than half the cases, the killer and victim knew each other.

New York City is on track to record fewer than 500 murders in 2005, the lowest toll in more than 40 years. There were 215 homicides through June 19, the Daily News reported, for a pace of 465 for the year. The last year that the city logged fewer than 500 slayings was 1961, when 482 people were killed.

In addition, an interesting, though uncommon, group of murders involved a handful of victims who died of injuries one or more years after being stabbed, shot, beaten or burned and were counted as murder victims in the year in which they died.

They wouldn't be murder victims until they died Carol. Interesting how they decide where to statistically 'file' them. Saw where a stabbing victim nearby died recently. They are looking at charging the already convicted perp with murder now.

As far as choosing NYC over Iraq. I'd probably rather be in NYC unless of course it is in the WTC on September 11 or in the streets the day a terrorist decides to set off a nuke there.

Beadbaby, I agree with your summation of the lte writer's intent. I was just pointing out that in NYC, Americans were killing Americans. In Iraq, a large part of it is Iraqis that are killing Iraqis (and our soldiers, of course).