Where Do Conservatives Get This Analogy

[Parche]

The truth of the matter, sir, is that they enlisted knowingly, willingly and were trained to fight. And to kill And sometimes they die. That is what soldiers do.

Last year in the US, over 43,200 people died in traffic related accidents on our own soil. That was something that was preventable. No bombs, no guns, no fighting. Car accidents. (Source www.NHTSA.dot.gov)
----------------
I have seen this 'analogy' several times now from them, about how more people in the US die of car accidents then have been killed in Iraq, so it is no big deal?
Has anyone else seen this also?, and if so where or who does it come from.
I am thinking it comes from Rush Limbaugh

[Lautremont]

1. I believe the medical term for the place they get it

is "inner rectus."

[Deep13]

2. And?

First of all, all those National Guard people did not enlist to fight a foreign war of aggression. Frankly, neither did the regular military. So that is just false. Second, traffic accidents are accidents. Iraq is not. Besides, how does killing 3000 soldier help traffic accident victims?

All this focuses on US battle fatalities and not the half million or so dead Iraqi civilians who are not guilty of anything.

[EFerrari]

3. It's a "two wrongs" argument that may have originated

in the vast void between Rush's ears. There are no speech centers in the brain stem iirc.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. "Fiduciary Responsibility"

This is what's lacking. The people in charge have a fiduciary responsibility to do the right thing and act in the interests of the people not in charge. This is something they have not done.

[zbdent]

5. Should be asking those "conservatives" who were screaming about the

potential bloodshed in Haiti in 1993 when Clinton sent in the troops to restore the duly elected President ...

[jody]

6. What is missing is they enlisted to become slaves, the only job in the U.S. from which

no military person can choose to quit if it turns out that the employer lied about the conditions of work.

Even after a troop's contract for employment is completed, government reserves the right to involuntarily recall her/him to a life of involuntary servitude.

[yardwork]

7. This comparison was common during and after the Vietnam War

The number of traffic fatalities was common retort from right-wingers when the number of American dead in Vietnam was mentioned. I challenged my 8th grade math teacher about the relevance (earning myself a "C" on my next project) but never got a reasonable answer.

Of course, the same folks who spouted this pointless comparison were totally against seat belt laws or speed limits, too. Freeper logic.

It's just another example of Nixon-era stupidity being recycled by the current administration.

[unpossibles]

8. what percentage of people who drive are in accidents versus the percentage

of troops who die?

I don't know, but I suspect there are a lot more people who use cars than there are soldiers serving in Iraq as well...

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/trn_lic_dri_tot_num_percap-drivers-total-number-per-capita

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/?table_sort_748377=8

[jbonkowski]

9. A rough calculation

Assuming 300 million Americans, that's 0.0144% died in car accidents.

How many military have served in Iraq? Let's assume a high number of 300,000. 3000 dead is 1% over three years, or about 0.33% a year. That's about 23 times worse a death rate than driving.

Not sure why you would compare them, though. Do you then say that $200B needs to be spent on preventing auto accidents, or 23 times $200B? Or do you say that invading Iraq was an accident?

What would you do to someone who caused an auto accident that killed 3000 people?

jim

[treestar]

10. It shows how their minds do not work logically

Since it is the percentage of people who die doing these things that would be more relevant, with the obvious result that being in combat is more likely to get you killed than driving a car is.

There is no analogy and no comparison otherwise, between a necessary activity with a normal risk to an unnecessary war (with higher risks).

And they are making light of the deaths, which is ironic when they use them to try to guilt you into supporting their stupid policies. At other times, these deaths matter a great deal to freepers, because you are mean to say the war should end and more shouldn't get killed or they would have died in vain.

Yet here they would have them be no more significant than deaths in car accidents. In that sense, they are arguing for a normalcy of death in combat that has never been recognized before. War was thought extraordinary. They are trying to make it into something routine. What bastards.

[valerief]

11. It's part of the Contract on America by way of PNACpedia. nt