So nice of you to notice. 
I kind of like having a catch-all thread for bitching about the WH, (I don’t want to limit myself to just GWB).
I don’t always feel like putting out the energy for a full blown debate, or even a worthy OP. Sometimes, I just need to vent a little bit.
I come here and take note of how I wish the WH had applied their position about Iraq- can’t be to careful, Hussein might one day have the potential to harm the US- to al Qaeda, and applied their position about al Qaeda to Iraq- not enough actionable intelligence.
It could be made into enough for it’s own OP, but that’s too much work for the moment.
This thread serves an important function for those, like myself, who apply their traditional distrust of politicans to this Admin as well as others.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2004/04/14/international/20040415_WEEK_slideshow_1.html
Y’all reckon Bushco is shedding any tears or losing any sleep over the deaths of these soldiers like their families are?
Motherfuckers.
I feel so much safer now:
Probe Casts Doubt on Iraq Nuclear Security
And untold thousands of Iraqi civilians.
How many deaths will it take to stay the course?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html
And for what?
A pox on Bushco and all those who wanted this illegal war.
700? Pah. You are obviously a very young man. During Lyndon Johnson’s war, we used to get 700 or more in a week.
You remember how it started out, Lib? Between 1961 and 1965 inclusive, there were 1,864 US KIA’s. We’re currently exceeding that rate in Iraq.
-I don’t mean to claim that the situations are parallel, or even quite similar, but I think it’s dangerous to think that because casualties are so much less than were suffered at the peak of Vietnam ('67 - '69), Iraq isn’t as dangerous a predicament.
Why is Reeder confined to just this thread? Opposition to the Evil that Is Bush and the USA is something that should be Spread out in many threds to best inseminate everyone with the knowledge that Bush is a bad man and help America take care of it’s problems so good Mexicans do not have to die solving American Bush Problems.
Read the rest of the thread.
And just for the record, Bush is pretty pro-Mexican. He’s probably the most pro-Mexican president we’ve had in a while.
Look, guy. Reeder may be a great guy and everything, but I damn sure don’t want him inseminating me. I mean, no offense, Reeder, but I barely know you…
If the susbequent advances in communication, transportation and medical technology were available to those in Viet Nam, the number of fatalities would’ve been lower. What’s more, advances in armor and other personal safety devices have had an impact on the number of serious injuries.
No insemination for me either. :eek:
Lynn is my hero. Even if she is a yellow dog democrat (or in Ohio-speak, a commie pinko).
Reeder, there comes a time when your bias demeans your argument. Rush Limbaugh, as an example, actually has some very valid points from time to time, amidst all his buffoonery. Trouble is, most people don’t care to wade through all the bullshit in order to excavate that tiny nugget of wisdom. He is so clearly biased and so prolific in his whiiiiiiiining that most people hear his voice and immediately :rolleyes:
You are the Rush Limbaugh of the SDMB.
Nah…that would be Brother Brutus.
And I ain’t going to inseminate anyone.
Been there…done that.
Four times.
The advances in communication, transportation and medical technology since Vietnam haven’t been very dramatic. The biggest factor in keeping wounds from turning into fatalities is the time between the injury and delivery to a surgical table, and Vietnam was the first war that saw the evacuation of casualties directly from the battlefield to surgery through helicopters as a routine, though the use was pioneered in Korea. The average time between being wounded and hitting a surgical table in Vietnam was under 100 minutes. Breaking down the numbers of killed vs wounded in Vietnam (58,202 KIA and 304,704 WIA) results in ~5.2 wounded per fatality. Taking the current numbers for Iraq as released by the Pentagon (702 KIA and 3,269 WIA) and breaking them down results in ~4.6 wounded per fatality.
IIRC, there’ve been some signifigant improvements in these areas since 1975- especially in the areas of communication and medical technology.
What’s questionable is the impact that these improvements’ve had.
It’s pretty “counter-intuitive” that there’d be a higher percetage of fatalities among the casualties now than before.
Are the weapons being used against us that much better?
What’d be hardest to track are injuries that are not incurred due to better personal safety devices.
Yes, perhaps I didn’t word that as well as I should have. There have of course been advancements in medical and communication technology, but they haven’t been as important in the treatment of battlefield wounds as the ability to rapidly evacuate casualties for treatment.
I’m at a loss to explain this as well, though the variation isn’t that large. It could perhaps just be differences in counting methods (though I included non-combat fatalities in both cases), or larger percentages of casualties due to friendly fire and the greater lethality of our own armaments. The shift in the ratio of wounded to killed is much more dramatic from earlier wars this century; the general rule of thumb was ~3-1 wounded to killed in World War II.
Pictures of president Bush, in shoes, coming into actual contact with terra firma (AKA dirt) may be found here. Maybe it’s just 9-11 associated dirt he’s got a thing about. OTOH, that looks like a nice new walkway he’s on for today’s swamp-stroll.
Nope. **Brutus ** only reacts to these threads. He doesn’t sem to start them.