Are civilian lives worth less than solders' lives?

See here for background; more on Iraq.

If we count the numbers of brave men and women who voluntarily went into Iraq, why not the people who died un-volentarily, innocent, and who died where they lived and could have only had a hell of a time getting out? The war is truthfully over and the US's presence in Iraq has been a occupation for quite some time now. What I cannot understand is why the mainstream American media, then, is still only reporting when an American solder dies. Is the common Iraqi not worthy of the likes of CNN, ABC, or FOX? Or is it just the fact that we are full of ourselves.

We are not fighting the nation (government) of Iraq. In fact, they (the government) are now our puppet, so why should we fight them? We are fighting the insurgents — insurgents that we sprang up and which our presence will inspire possibly generations more of. If that is so, then why does an Iraqi life — or even two Iraqi lives — not count as much as one American solder's life. I understand that these brave men and women are out there fighting because of our administration and government's faulty intelligence gathering, but they are there by choice (or at least some choice). The Iraqis, tens of thousands of innocent people killed, also suffer because of our efforts in the country. Those dead and injured were the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time, the latter two apply to the soldiers there too.

Yes the troops in Iraq are brave but they are there [in a war zone or the like] voluntarily, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of civilians.

technorati tags: bush, iraq, deaths, toll, casualties, civilian, iraq+body+count, politics, coalition, military, troops, mortality, morality, death, die, news, report, johns+hopkins, researchers, human+rights+watch, poll, estimate, statistics, number, invasion, Iraq+war, media, news, news+media, troop, military, civilians