Which is worse? 100,000 dead in an illegal war.....

[5X]

or 100,000 dead from a natural
disaster.

Armies are good at deployment to areas without infrastructure. An army's purpose
is to destroy infrastructure while killing massive quantities of people. Historically the army,
upon victory, then will try and restore the country to a point that will allow rebuilding.
The US army is now engaged both in the destruction phase and the rebuilding phase in Iraq,
tho, neither is going well.
An army travels with its own support personnel and supplies to allow deployment to
devastated areas. The devastation is usually as the result of the armies actions.
Southern Asia could use a good army right about now. One that is unencumbered by killing
and destruction. Southern Asia could use billions of dollars right about now. Dollars not being
used for killing and destruction. Unfortunately, the US army is deployed in an illegal,
unwanted, unneccessary war.

[BeTheChange]

1. Not a contest. nt

[sam sarrha]

2. we killed over 100,000 civilians in Iraq ALREADY,mostly women and children

[5X]

3. Exactly, and if we weren't involved with that...

we would have ability to help lots more in
southern asia.

[unblock]

4. 3,000 dead from a suicidal attack by (mostly) saudis is worse than either

and justifies killing 10s of 1,000s of afghans; 100,000 iraqis; and however many iranians chimpy feels like it until we control all the oil in the middle east.

didn't you get your memo from uncle kkkarl?

[What Is This Crap]

5. hm the marching orders dont say that

Oh wait im looking at it upside down.

dont forget to add coversheets to your tps reports, KKKarl

[unblock]

6. yeahhhhhhh, i'm gonna go ahead and ask you to hand over that stapler....

[ooglymoogly]

8. lol saw that flick.....don't remember the name....but remember the line

[unblock]

11. office space

office space

[ooglymoogly]

13. yes its kinda like our own resident idiot ending up with

whole ball of wax

[TrustingDog]

15. heh. keep picturing bush's face on that photocopier... n/t

[newyawker99]

14. Hi What Is This Crap!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[K-W]

10. They should make a ticker

that tells us how much lives are worth in each country, so we know how to temper our emotions like good Americans.

[aquart]

7. Indonesia is saying it will be 400,000.

Based on aerial surveillance.

Iraq is worse. FOR US. Death is death. In the end it doesn't matter if a tsunami or a war kills you. The Indonesians have been killing each other for years. But WE are the murderers in Iraq. We are stained in that blood which, coincidentally, is red.

And it isn't going to wash off.

We can make friends by being generous to East Asia. We can make only enemies by our war in Iraq. We are fools bent on our own destruction.

[ooglymoogly]

9. truly said

[No Mandate Here.]

12. Or ten times that many in Darfur... Right under our noses.

From Demagogue...

<http://demagogue.blogspot.com/>


This Is Starting to Piss Me Off

By my count, there are at least 10 stories in today's Washington Post about the tsunami and not one that mentions Darfur.

They include articles such as this

At Amazon.com alone, more than 53,000 people had donated more than $3 million by yesterday evening after the company made an urgent appeal on its home page. Catholic Relief Services was so overwhelmed with Web traffic that its site crashed. Online donations to the Red Cross outstripped traditional phone banks by more than 2 to 1.

and this

In photographs, the children have dark, messy hair and they are draped in blankets. Their infant arms and legs are soft or -- if they are older -- long and spindly. Too weak to hold on.

The waters rushed in and the waters retreated and at least a third of the bodies left behind were those of children.

There is no doubt that this is a massive tragedy and one that deserves the attention and assistance it is garnering, but I cannot understand why a natural disaster such as this gets constant media attention while the genocide in Darfur goes essentially unreported.

<snip>

[hughee99]

16. Or Rwanda