OMG, what have we, as a nation, done!

[TayTay]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x260731

There are no words. Just no words.

[ProSense]

1. I don't know, but

that young man's sucide the other day is a terrible sign. :cry:

[whometense]

2. No words.

I imagine when he looks at this JK feels very few pangs about giving up his run for the presidency. He really has chosen a much more important battle, and one so overwhelming that very few will have the stomach to tackle it.

I'm not religious, but I pray there is a hell so unspeakably horrible that Bush and Cheney and all their warmongering pals will live there for all eternity, face to face with what they have brought about.

[beachmom]

3. I decided to do a grim calculation, based on if Iraq had the same

death to casualty rate as Vietnam. If that were so, we would now be facing 19,518 dead in Iraq. Here's the thing -- the fact that the deaths in Iraq are lower has nothing to do with the war going better than Vietnam -- it is purely due to better battlefield medicine and equipment.

19,518 dead if you're comparing it to Vietnam not figuring in medical advancement.

Here's the website for casualties and deaths:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Total deaths: 3090
Total non-mortal casualties: 47,657

[beachmom]

4. Hey, guys -- What the hell is going on? I was just sharing with

someone my above calculation, so I went to the casualties website, and the wounded figure has gone DOWN 15,000, while the dead has gone up 64. Can anyone explain WHY the wounded rate has been changed. This is utter BS, and makes it hard to compare casualty rates in Iraq to Vietnam. And it strikes me as putting out bogus numbers to lessen the amount of wounded.

[karynnj]

5. The NYT had an article last month on this

Apparently it kind of suggests that the definition of who is counted is more narrow than you would reasonably expect - and the higher number was posted to the web site in error.

"For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department’s Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.

But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.

Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or “hostile” injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.

But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans’ groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate."





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us/30wound.html?ex=1327813200&en=d2722dd8e97b0b43&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[TayTay]

6. Look at the articles on what is wrong at Walter Reed

They write about how the Doctors did anything possible to NOT GIVE vets disability benefits by claiming that the conditions were pre-existing.

Ah, I should think they would do the same thing on injuries in general. These people are ruthless and have no consciences to speak of at all.

[blm]

7. Looks like typical Bush administration tactics at play.

.