Bush's Wars Cost Each US Family $20,000

[cmoneyr]

Nobody called you any names, someone made an observation about your attitude based on your previous posts, and I agreed.

 

[Stormin]

To spell it out for you, Johnny: The media, and the post Viet Nam era democrats couldn't care LESS how many soldiers die, unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting those deaths. In fact, I would propose that a significant number of the media and post-VN era democrats ACTIVELY HATE the military, and consider anyone who serves a low-life baby-murdering scum. I base this on the result of each and every conversation I've been forced to endure from the anti-military liberals who feel the need to tell me "how things really are in Iraq" once they discover that I've served there. They're all "nicey-nicey" and condenscending, until I disagree with one of their points. Then it's all spittle, and shrieking, and "SOLDIERS MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!"

I'm sure they don't share their hatred of all things military with some of their "pet" military veterans, though. Otherwise, I'm sure you would've received the memo on that.

As Herbiedoobie has pointed out in his post and so carefully spelled out for all: The Media and post Viet Nam era Democrats couldn't care Less how many soldiers die unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting these deaths.

Looks like accusing OTHERS OF HATE is a ploy that NeoCons use. As evidenced by Herbiedoobie's post.

How Dare you say that anyone doesn't care how many of our soldiers die. That is a disgusting post.

 

[Jer]

I ask that people stay on the topic and not resort to just calling political names. I know it's a contentious war and the debate can be personal but I ask again that things remain on topic!

 

[herbiedoobie]

As Herbiedoobie has pointed out in his post and so carefully spelled out for all: The Media and post Viet Nam era Democrats couldn't care Less how many soldiers die unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting these deaths.

Looks like accusing OTHERS OF HATE is a ploy that NeoCons use. As evidenced by Herbiedoobie's post.

How Dare you say that anyone doesn't care how many of our soldiers die. That is a disgusting post.

I'm not saying they "don't care" about how many of our soldiers die. I'm saying they only really want to exploit their deaths. As Cyclonepride pointed out, earlier, this concern for military mortality was evidently not present prior to the war, in years when training deaths exceeded combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, if you'd like to attack his point, please find some articles by mainstream media types mourning the loss of XXXX amount of soldiers in training accidents.

I'm also interested that a lot of the current bunch crying crocodile tears over combat deaths are perpetually attempting to strip the defense budget in peacetime. And/or they are attempting to fund things that actually inhibit combat readiness/effectiveness. The body armor/uparmored HMMWV mess earlier in the war was a good example of this. No army ever "uparmored" it's way to victory, but if it were so important, and the "Republicans" were so negligent as to send an Army to war (gee, I seem to remember Democrats voting for the war, as well) without "proper equipment", how come they didn't vote for that years ago.

So, in their eyes, the more soldiers that die in Iraq or Afghanistan, the better. More combat deaths = political advantage to their point of view.

Of course, I can all caps everything, and bold my words to make them seem more important.

 

[Stormin]

I'm not saying they "don't care" about how many of our soldiers die. I'm saying they only really want to exploit their deaths. As Cyclonepride pointed out, earlier, this concern for military mortality was evidently not present prior to the war, in years when training deaths exceeded combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, if you'd like to attack his point, please find some articles by mainstream media types mourning the loss of XXXX amount of soldiers in training accidents.

I'm also interested that a lot of the current bunch crying crocodile tears over combat deaths are perpetually attempting to strip the defense budget in peacetime. And/or they are attempting to fund things that actually inhibit combat readiness/effectiveness. The body armor/uparmored HMMWV mess earlier in the war was a good example of this. No army ever "uparmored" it's way to victory, but if it were so important, and the "Republicans" were so negligent as to send an Army to war (gee, I seem to remember Democrats voting for the war, as well) without "proper equipment", how come they didn't vote for that years ago.

So, in their eyes, the more soldiers that die in Iraq or Afghanistan, the better. More combat deaths = political advantage to their point of view.

Of course, I can all caps everything, and bold my words to make them seem more important.

You absolutely stated that "the media and post Viet Nam era Democrats couldn't care less how many soldiers die." Nice try at backpedaling on your hypocritical hate filled comments. Cut your losses. Admit you were wrong and apologize. You spelled things out quite well for Johnny and all to see. Your post speaks for itself.

 

[iceclone]

Looking for pre-war stories on military accidental fatalities would not really be a fair comparison, since when compared to many others, military service is apparently not a particularly dangerous profession during peace time. This should thus not be expected to be a frequent news story.

For a comparison, note that in post #129 of this thread, AggieClone posted some nice numbers that show military fatality rates over the period since 1980, and I also refer to the following article for the most dangerous jobs in America:

Many hazardous jobs are well-paid - Oct. 13, 2003

As measured by fatality rates, much more dangerous professions include farming, truck driving, and commercial fishing.

What I actually find the most interesting in these military fatality numbers is that the military cut its accidental fatality rate in half over two decades. That is an impressive improvement in their safety record and I would be interested to learn about how it was achieved.

 

[herbiedoobie]

To spell it out for you, Johnny: The media, and the post Viet Nam era democrats couldn't care LESS how many soldiers die, unless they can advance their political agenda by exploiting those deaths.

I'm not saying they "don't care" about how many of our soldiers die. I'm saying they only really want to exploit their deaths.

You absolutely stated that "the media and post Viet Nam era Democrats couldn't care less how many soldiers die." Nice try at backpedaling on your hypocritical hate filled comments. Cut your losses. Admit you were wrong and apologize. You spelled things out quite well for Johnny and all to see. Your post speaks for itself.

Well, sir, I suggest you work on your basic reading skills. Then, reread both of the above posts, paying special attention to the bolded parts. (You apparently are very fond of "bold", so I did that in your honor.)

Upon reading and understanding them, you will note that I am not backpedaling; merely restating the same thing, two different ways, to aid in your reading comprehension.

I also fail to see what I am "wrong" about; and what is "hate-filled" about asserting that "the media" and a certain portion of the democratic party benefits from and exploits military deaths in battle. Therefore, I see no need to apologize.

Your last sentence is correct, though; my post speaks for itself.

Reading - It's fundamental!

 

[herbiedoobie]

Looking for pre-war stories on military accidental fatalities would not really be a fair comparison, since when compared to many others, military service is apparently not a particularly dangerous profession during peace time. This should thus not be expected to be a frequent news story.

For a comparison, note that in post #129 of this thread, AggieClone posted some nice numbers that show military fatality rates over the period since 1980, and I also refer to the following article for the most dangerous jobs in America:

Many hazardous jobs are well-paid - Oct. 13, 2003

As measured by fatality rates, much more dangerous professions include farming, truck driving, and commercial fishing.

What I actually find the most interesting in these military fatality numbers is that the military cut its accidental fatality rate in half over two decades. That is an impressive improvement in their safety record and I would be interested to learn about how it was achieved.

I would guess that the accident rate went down because there was no fuel or money to train, during the 1990s. The early '80s had a high accident rate because the mid- to late- 70s were basically the same, with limited training dollars available and operations tempo went up starting in 1980.

One of the leading causes of accidents is poor leadership, not doing their due diligence training and leading soldiers, and poor maintenance, which is a combination of training, maintenance funds and leadership.

Speaking of training, I am at a school right now, otherwise, I might have the time to find the numbers to support my assertions. Otherwise, the above is pretty close to my recollection (I graduated the safety school in 2006)the Army's official line on accident numbers.

 

[Stormin]

Well, sir, I suggest you work on your basic reading skills. Then, reread both of the above posts, paying special attention to the bolded parts. (You apparently are very fond of "bold", so I did that in your honor.)

Upon reading and understanding them, you will note that I am not backpedaling; merely restating the same thing, two different ways, to aid in your reading comprehension.

I also fail to see what I am "wrong" about; and what is "hate-filled" about asserting that "the media" and a certain portion of the democratic party benefits from and exploits military deaths in battle. Therefore, I see no need to apologize.

Your last sentence is correct, though; my post speaks for itself.

Reading - It's fundamental!

Of course you wouldn't see what is "wrong" with your hate filled comments. I would venture to say that many of those "media and post Viet Nam era Democrats" have had relatives killed in Iraq. And for you to make a blanket statement "that they do not care if soldiers die unless it furthers their political agenda" is disgusting and should be condemned for what it is. We are a country that is at war and the blood of Democrats and the media is just as red as yours. And the sacrifices made by their children are no less than those of others who have given their lives for this country.

 

[iceclone]

I would guess that the accident rate went down because there was no fuel or money to train, during the 1990s. The early '80s had a high accident rate because the mid- to late- 70s were basically the same, with limited training dollars available and operations tempo went up starting in 1980.

One of the leading causes of accidents is poor leadership, not doing their due diligence training and leading soldiers, and poor maintenance, which is a combination of training, maintenance funds and leadership.

Speaking of training, I am at a school right now, otherwise, I might have the time to find the numbers to support my assertions. Otherwise, the above is pretty close to my recollection (I graduated the safety school in 2006)the Army's official line on accident numbers.

It would be interesting to see those numbers when you have time. I find it interesting, though, that most of the most rapid decrease is observed during the 80s, and then continuing some in the 90s (see attached graph based on AggieClone's data where I've identified the peaks and low points). And while the rate has gone up for obvious reasons in the past few years, it is still much lower than the early 80s.

I guess I'm just too fascinated by data :smile:

 

[Angie]

Thanks to all who participated in this thread with good intentions. After repeated requests to not make personal attacks, it was deemed time that this thread was closed.

In the future, we just want to ask everyone to be respectful of their fellow posters, their thoughts and ideas, and the personal information they share with the board. If you cannot comply with this request in regards to a certain topic, please just avoid posting on it. If you feel that you or someone else have been disrespected, please report that post by using the little red "X" to the lower left of the poster's name. You should also feel free to PM any of the moderators at any time - I know that I welcome this kind of input.

Thanks.