Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 727
  1. #541  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Doesnt change the numbers or the facts
    I agree. I only bring that up because the quote would seem to imply that because more people have died during times of peace, then it should not that big a deal that *only* 1800+ have died in Iraq. (I guess its trying to say that each sacrifice is weighed the same whether its during war or peacetime). While I might agree that all our soldiers are equally important, I think my distinction is still valid...
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    I think is shows that military life is dangerous in regardless of wether there is a war on. If the people who sign up don't realize that... well I think they are stupid. They arent signing up for duty at the mall with a whistle and mace. IT'S THE MILITARY!!!!
    I wouldnt say that they are stupid, but definitely ignorant (and arguably because recruiting goals have been shot to hell for most branches, they are catching on quickly.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Although I think that is a sad statistic, there is a difference in that situation and the one in Iraq. For all those that have died in Iraq, they have died because 'we' have put them there (some level of intent). For all of those that died 'accidently', arguably it was unintentional.
    Well, yes and no. The situation for each death will be different for the most part. If we sent troops out for field exercises and someone was fatally wounded in a tank accident we could argue that they would not have been there if not sent out for the exercise. I understand the difference in exercise and war zone, but training in field conditions is inherently more dangerous than staying on post. Or if someone dies battling a fire aboard a ship or aircraft again it is unintentional, however "we" sent them into the dangerous situation, and it may have just been to save the aircraft since everyone was safely out of harms way already. (Both are true examples I know of)
  4. #544  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree. I only bring that up because the quote would seem to imply that because more people have died during times of peace, then it should not that big a deal that *only* 1800+ have died in Iraq. (I guess its trying to say that each sacrifice is weighed the same whether its during war or peacetime). While I might agree that all our soldiers are equally important, I think my distinction is still valid...
    That's the point. Each death is its own tragedy, yet you would never know that anyone ever died in the military except for the deaths in Iraq. I never see NRG post any training related deaths that may happen in the States, only those related to Iraq or Afghanistan.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #545  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    That's the point. Each death is its own tragedy, yet you would never know that anyone ever died in the military except for the deaths in Iraq. I never see NRG post any training related deaths that may happen in the States, only those related to Iraq or Afghanistan.
    That may be your point, but I don't think its THE point.

    My point was that while I agree that each death is a tragedy, *arguably* those that have died in Iraq may be more tragic if you believe the intentions and efforts in Iraq have been misguided. (I tried to say that as nicely as possible )

    As far as NRG...he has his point of view. It's his and he is free to express it. I side with him (and even you ) when I can. I will admit that lately when I check the new posts, if I see his, it has been pretty slanted to the left...that doesnt make it wrong in my book and I don't have to jump onto every thread to attempt to bring it back to the middle either.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #546  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Well, yes and no. The situation for each death will be different for the most part. If we sent troops out for field exercises and someone was fatally wounded in a tank accident we could argue that they would not have been there if not sent out for the exercise. I understand the difference in exercise and war zone, but training in field conditions is inherently more dangerous than staying on post. Or if someone dies battling a fire aboard a ship or aircraft again it is unintentional, however "we" sent them into the dangerous situation, and it may have just been to save the aircraft since everyone was safely out of harms way already. (Both are true examples I know of)
    I agree in part.

    My point (It doesnt seem to be very clear) is that while we might have training accidents and those arguably are 'intentional', most would agree that (arguably) they are necessary and unpreventable at some point if we are to maintain our training readiness. The military is a dangerous business...no doubt. However, if you are of the group that believes the war was either unnecessary or that our troops should be brought home now or that in the end, our efforts will be for not, then it appears to be more tragic that american lives are being lost during war time (versus during training).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #547  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    That may be your point, but I don't think its THE point.

    My point was that while I agree that each death is a tragedy, *arguably* those that have died in Iraq may be more tragic if you believe the intentions and efforts in Iraq have been misguided. (I tried to say that as nicely as possible )

    As far as NRG...he has his point of view. It's his and he is free to express it. I side with him (and even you ) when I can. I will admit that lately when I check the new posts, if I see his, it has been pretty slanted to the left...that doesnt make it wrong in my book and I don't have to jump onto every thread to attempt to bring it back to the middle either.
    I have my point of view, you have yours, and NRG has his. Assuming that your point is the point is humerous, in that I made my point based on the quote that I posted. You may disagree with those facts, but it certainly doesnt make your impression of the facts any more valid then anyone elses. The military is a job. Sometimes people get hurt, sometimes they die. While it's sad, it doesnt change the fact that those things happen.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree in part.

    My point (It doesnt seem to be very clear) is that while we might have training accidents and those arguably are 'intentional', most would agree that (arguably) they are necessary and unpreventable at some point if we are to maintain our training readiness. The military is a dangerous business...no doubt. However, if you are of the group that believes the war was either unnecessary or that our troops should be brought home now or that in the end, our efforts will be for not, then it appears to be more tragic that american lives are being lost during war time (versus during training).
    t2 I think we are saying the same thing, I was just pointing out that an argument could be made to blame a superior for any death that is job related.
  9. #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I have my point of view, you have yours, and NRG has his. Assuming that your point is the point is humerous, in that I made my point based on the quote that I posted. You may disagree with those facts, but it certainly doesnt make your impression of the facts any more valid then anyone elses. The military is a job. Sometimes people get hurt, sometimes they die. While it's sad, it doesnt change the fact that those things happen.
    I am always happy to provide a laugh, but when I looked over my post, I don't see where I made the assumption that my point was the most valid?

    I said "That may be your point, but I don't think its THE point." <--All this is saying is that while your point may have some validity, IMO it is not the only point. Additionally, I didn't say my point was THE point either.

    I originally posted what I did to point out that there is a distinction that could be drawn (which your quote did not present.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10.    #550  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    That post was not from the what do you do for a living thread. It was another political thread. He was telling claire she had no business insulting him because of his mag and clinics. That sounds elitist to me.
    Sorry bout that. Was on the road with Treo and internet and didn't check your link.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Anyone who says he's more qualified to discuss something beecause he "owns a magazine and two imaging clinics" is an elitist in my book, regardless of which side he is on. And dont deny you said it.

    In case you forgot. http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=152
    Woof, I never claimed that because of what I do her opinion was not vaild. Nice way to twist words.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #552  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    NRG, which magazine do you own?
    It is a cosmetic surgery, dentistry, or anything to do with human aesthetics. The name of it is New Outlook Magazine.
  13. #553  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
    I am afraid that this may just be another example for how you can manipulate numbers to promote your political message.

    This analysis overlooks the fact that during the Reagan years we had a lot of military stateside and all over the world and that number is much larger than the number who are in Iraq right now.

    Taking that into account, I believe that the total military death rate would be smaller, not larger than the Iraq combat death rate.
  14. #554  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am always happy to provide a laugh, but when I looked over my post, I don't see where I made the assumption that my point was the most valid?

    I said "That may be your point, but I don't think its THE point." <--All this is saying is that while your point may have some validity, IMO it is not the only point. Additionally, I didn't say my point was THE point either.

    I originally posted what I did to point out that there is a distinction that could be drawn (which your quote did not present.)
    The inference is that your point is THE point, and I think that while you may have a valid point, it certainly isnt The point. Get my point?
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #555  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am afraid that this may just be another example for how you can manipulate numbers to promote your political message.

    This analysis overlooks the fact that during the Reagan years we had a lot of military stateside and all over the world and that number is much larger than the number who are in Iraq right now.

    Taking that into account, I believe that the total military death rate would be smaller, not larger than the Iraq combat death rate.
    I think you have missed the whole point. Notice I said The point. which is that during all of those years, and some 18,000+ military deaths, attributed to be non-combat related, nobody said zip, nada, nuttin, zero.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. #556  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am afraid that this may just be another example for how you can manipulate numbers to promote your political message.
    How is she manipulating anything?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17.    #557  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    How is she manipulating anything?
    She manipulated what a view that wasn't his own.
  18. #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    She manipulated what a view that wasn't his own.
    You really like that new the thumbs down smiley, I will have to start calling you Nero.

    Anyway, I am not saying CG manipulated anything. She obviously got it from some source? Is that a fair assumption? Maybe it is the source I am referring to??
  19. #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    You really like that new the thumbs down smiley, I will have to start calling you Nero.

    Anyway, I am not saying CG manipulated anything. She obviously got it from some source? Is that a fair assumption? Maybe it is the source I am referring to??
    If you follow the links through, the figures are from the DoD, which I feel is a better source then Yahoo, CNN, MSNCB, C-BS or the NYTimes.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  20. #560  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think you have missed the whole point. Notice I said The point. which is that during all of those years, and some 18,000+ military deaths, attributed to be non-combat related, nobody said zip, nada, nuttin, zero.
    Somebody was talking about a death rate. It implies a relative risk of death right?

    The number of deaths per year does not have anything to do with the risk of death if the two groups you are comparing are not near the same size.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 08/24/2005 at 08:48 PM.

Posting Permissions