Gibson to Cindy Sheehan: Thanks for your sacrifice. Now get lost. - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #46 (**permalink**) 08-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

If the ones who have enlisted and have survived can continue to survive for the remainder of their service obligation, then and only then would it make no sense to them.

Are you on crack? MOST soldiers do NOT get killed. There are hundreds of thousands in the military and who have been in the military and most have returned home from combat.

Darwinism? Sheesh. Maybe you are on meth, is that it? Or X?

I have just come to realize why I never answer your posts or otherwise engage you on this forum.

solletica · #47 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Are you on crack? MOST soldiers do NOT get killed. There are hundreds of thousands in the military and who have been in the military and most have returned home from combat.

Also consider troops that have been wounded. . .

Quote:

30,490 U.S. service members have been wounded due to combat actions in Iraq and 2,309 in Afghanistan (32,799 total).

Iraq and Afghanistan Casualty Statistics

And those coming back w/PTSD. . .

Quote:

Records show roughly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with the illness, also known as PTSD, since 2003.

40,000 US Soldiers with PTSD- HealthAndSurvival.com

It's reasonable to expect the rate of PTSD among troops classified as wounded to be the same as for all troops combined. In Afghanistan and Iraq, roughly 268000 troops were deployed at some point (200000 in Iraq, and 68000 in Afghanistan),

so PTSD rate = 40000 / 268000 = 14.9%. So wounded w/PTSD = 14.9% * 32799 = 4895.37

Hence, total deaths + wounded (including those w/PTSD) + PTSD but not wounded = 4683 + 32799 + 40000 - 4895 = 72587

and 72587 / 268000 = 27.08% .

PTSD makes life difficult enough, but if it's excluded from the percentage, then we have

(4683 + 32799) / 268000 = 13.9%.

In other words, for troops deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, there is a 27% chance of either being killed or developing a major ailment (injury or PTSD), or a 13.9% chance of being killed or wounded.

Compare this to the rate for peace protesters like Cindy, and oh. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Darwinism? Sheesh. Maybe you are on meth, is that it? Or X?

Since you mentioned it. . .

Quote:

Go-pills are routinely taken by pilots to keep them awake and alert on long missions. Major Harry Schmidt has said he flew seven 10-hour missions in the weeks preceding the April 18 sortie and had used the go-pills each time.

CBC News Indepth: Friendly Fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I have just come to realize why I never answer your posts or otherwise engage you on this forum.

Too hot for you to handle, so feel free to ignore me again

EagleTed · #48 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009

The only conclusion I have is that you will be joining Sheehan in her protests of Obama's wars.

Rude Boy · #49 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleTed

During the 2004 presidential elections, the mainstream news media frequently engaged in bias -- especially on pro-life issues such as abortion and stem cell research. As with previous polls, a new survey confirms most members of the media voted for Democrat John Kerry over President George W. Bush.

The University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy found journalists picked Kerry over Bush by 68 percent to 25 percent.

The college sampled 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV. The poll also found that Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1...
Survey: News Media Voted for John Kerry Over President Bush

Pew and every other reputable polling firm has found the same thing: a Left Press. But, it's hard to see with one's head in the ground.

You've proved nothing. While many of the talking heads may lean liberal, the institutions themselves are firmly entrenched, and in firm defense of the status quo, which makes them decidedly conservative. The few conglomerates that own the media outlets have consolidated their reigns regarding media ownership. The coverage has narrowed to allow for a mirage of "diverse" views ... nothing more.

EagleTed · #50 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

You've proved nothing. While many of the talking heads may lean liberal, the institutions themselves are firmly entrenched, and in firm defense of the status quo, which makes them decidedly conservative. The few conglomerates that own the media outlets have consolidated their reigns regarding media ownership. The coverage has narrowed to allow for a mirage of "diverse" views ... nothing more.

I offered facts. All you offer is opinion.

Rude Boy · #51 (**permalink**) 08-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleTed

I offered facts. All you offer is opinion.

No, I've offered empirical facts. The media has not consolidated? It doesn't prefer the status quo? What is the range of viewpoints that are dissiminated to the public at large?

If you need more assistance, you may find the following valuable (or you may dismiss it because it interferes with your opinion of a "liberal media):

Manufacturing Consent
A Propaganda Model
excerpted from the book
Manufacturing Consent
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Pantheon Books, 1988

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode