this is so fucked up. this is from article in the new york times about the american death toll in iraq (88 so far):----------------------
Though the men have strikingly different interpretations of the statistics, neither said the level of casualties was unacceptable in a war whose goals are clear and whose progress has been steady. That position reflects the sentiment of scores of people interviewed today across the country and of public opinion experts who have surveyed thousands of Americans in recent polls.
....most interviewed today said the casualties had not eroded their support for the war, and that they could accept two, three or even 10 times as many deaths in the coming weeks, as long as success was in sight. Many said they were focused more on the status of the allied advance than on body counts.
"I'm numbed to it, disgustingly numbed to it," said Jack Nimz, 42, a patent attorney who lives in Glenview, a Chicago suburb. "Even if an extra 100 people had died, I'd think we should go forward because we've been so successful."
Others noted that the 88 killed in Iraq was just a fraction of the more than 3,000 who died on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Those, to me, are casualties of this same war, which is a war against terrorism," said Daphne Scholz, co-owner of a gourmet food store in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn. "We took the first casualties, and the balance of dead is still on our side."
"This is not a heavy toll," said Vic Weber, 59, who was drinking coffee at a Starbuck's today in downtown Los Angeles. "I bet it's less than what the military loses in training exercises every year in this country."
--------------------------------
first, isn't it great that people are fine with 10 times as many people dying? they're not the ones fighting over there! how can the newspaper even ask people, "would you mind if more people died?" as if their opinions mattered!! we're talking about people DYING, not some tv show or something. later in the article they talk about "casualty backlash," meaning that if more people die, the war might lose public support. they aren't too worried about casualty backlash right now, since the people they interviewed don't give a fuck how many people die.
"But, Professor Gitlin said, 'as long as the military can make a plausible case that they're winning the war and it's in its final approach to victory � however they are defining victory � then I don't think they are in any danger of casualty backlash.'"
second, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11. why do people think that? even if members of al queda were from iraq, they were acting independently of the Iraqi government or the people. if an American terrorist killed a bunch of people in some other country, and that country's government declared war on the US, it would be about the same as getting back at Iraq for 9/11. i hear people saying stuff like that on the bus, too. like, "well, i don't like this war... but you know, they really had it coming to them after sept 11.." oh my fucking god. this is so beyond borderline ridiculous.