![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sethrakDear Anne Currie and Matt Lowry,
Yes, the current war in Iraq is now five years old, a year longer than the American civil war. Yes, we hit the 4,000 mark in American military casualties over the weekend. This is a sad milestone; my heart goes out to the families and friends of the deceased, and my prayers go to those brave men and women.
But when you have the gall to compare this war's death toll with the Civil War, and neglect to mention just what the death toll for the Civil War was, you are fucking irresponsible and guilty of shoddy journalism.
From wikipedia, admittedly not a very authoritative source at times, but the best I can get at the moment: Union soldiers killed in action, 11,000; total dead, 360,000. Confederate KIAs, 93,000; total dead, 258,000.
That's the total for the entire four years.
The battle of Antietam lasted only one day, and had a combined total of 9860 dead from both sides.
The battle of Gettsyburg was four days, and 7863 soldiers total died.
Going to a different war, one that causes somewhat less controversy on either side of the Mason-Dixon line, the Normandy invasion, lasting roughly six weeks, killed 10,264 members of the US, Canadian, and UK forces.
War is hell. Losing your loved one to war is hell.
But how dare you act as if this war is one of the bloodiest we've ever been involved in?! How dare you?
Pah. Journalists, indeed.
Remind me to drive up to St. Kateri's sometime this week and light a candle for those soldiers and their families. The base and housing chapels don't have devotional candles, as they're meant to be for all faiths.
Yes, the current war in Iraq is now five years old, a year longer than the American civil war. Yes, we hit the 4,000 mark in American military casualties over the weekend. This is a sad milestone; my heart goes out to the families and friends of the deceased, and my prayers go to those brave men and women.
But when you have the gall to compare this war's death toll with the Civil War, and neglect to mention just what the death toll for the Civil War was, you are fucking irresponsible and guilty of shoddy journalism.
From wikipedia, admittedly not a very authoritative source at times, but the best I can get at the moment: Union soldiers killed in action, 11,000; total dead, 360,000. Confederate KIAs, 93,000; total dead, 258,000.
That's the total for the entire four years.
The battle of Antietam lasted only one day, and had a combined total of 9860 dead from both sides.
The battle of Gettsyburg was four days, and 7863 soldiers total died.
Going to a different war, one that causes somewhat less controversy on either side of the Mason-Dixon line, the Normandy invasion, lasting roughly six weeks, killed 10,264 members of the US, Canadian, and UK forces.
War is hell. Losing your loved one to war is hell.
But how dare you act as if this war is one of the bloodiest we've ever been involved in?! How dare you?
Pah. Journalists, indeed.
Remind me to drive up to St. Kateri's sometime this week and light a candle for those soldiers and their families. The base and housing chapels don't have devotional candles, as they're meant to be for all faiths.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 12:15 am (UTC)More evidence either that professional journalists are idiots, or worse, that they think *we* are. And then they wonder why the rest of the country wouldn't trust them to program the VCR. @.@
IIRC, something like two percent of the country died during the Civil War. The drops of blood drawn by the lash were indeed matched by those drawn by the sword . . . Iraq and Afghanistan don't even come close to individual Civil War battles, let alone the entire conflict.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 11:00 am (UTC)I can't remember where that's from for the life of me, but it springs to mind a lot. Why are they making comparisons? Because they're alive during it. They're seeing it first-hand as it's happening. It's natural that they're going to think it's worse than something they've only read about and thus only had contact with on an entirely logical and non-physical level. Does this make them any less stupid?
Shit no.