Can anyone explain the point of this AP "news" story on how U.S. deaths in war equal those from 9/11? Besides being pointless, the piece includes pablum like this:
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.
Yes, and?
The meaningless of the milestone is even mentioned in the story itself:
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
Exactly. So why even write a story about it? Why indeed.
UPDATE-- James e-mails to try to help clarify matters:
So there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq? Is that what the article is suggesting?
I've heard that the total U.S. combat deaths in WWII exceeded those of December 7, 1941. Of course, I have no way of proving that.
Oh, and I seem to recall some hillbillies firing some cannons on a place called Ft. Sumter back in April, 1861, and that a war followed in which lots of people died. Again, I have heard that more people died in the next, oh, four or five years, than died that fateful spring day, but I can't prove that.
I'm just sayin.
James makes a good point on the Civil War that demonstrates how hollow this article truly is. The actual bombardment of Fort Sumter, which started the Civil War, killed no one. Yet the war that followed claimed over 600,000 lives. Wars are not started to "answer death" as the AP story claims. They are more often than not joined in response to attacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment