<p>“my nephew (the orthopedic surgeon who did up to 100 amputations a day during his service in Iraq”
Fundingfather–you said “something doesn’t add up”–and in fact, I was really badly unclear in my description of my nephew’s time in Iraq. He was the day colonel at the hospital, where the HOSPITAL (not him personally) did as many as 100 amputations/day. Besides serving US troops, they also treated Iraqis, who are not included in the statistics you cited. Sorry, I shouldn’t write such things so quickly that I get sloppy like that!</p>
<p>If we are talking “grossly” distorted statistics, I would be far more willing to believe the DoD numbers than the “100 per day figure”. Do the math - if the claim was “up to 100” per day for one doctor, then let’s say the average was half that. That figures out to be 3.5<em>365</em>50=63,875 amputations - all done by a single doctor!!! Multiply that be the number of doctors doing amputations over there and you quickly get to the point that most soldiers going there are coming home without limbs. If you want to claim that this is even remotely in the ballpark, I will have to call you on it and demand sources. Otherwise, the claim of “100 per day” smacks of wild leftist talk trying to use a grisly experience of amputations to “talk down” the war.</p>
<p>Edit: I just saw DMD’s further explanation. The number still sounds greatly exaggerated, but I don’t know for a fact.</p>
<p>logosprincipal:
Which mission? No one seems to know what the mission is. It changes every time the GOP talking points change. Seems like a lot to ask our military to risk their lives for a mission no one can articulate. </p>
<p>barrons:
No, we have clearly said that the weather is Clinton’s fault.</p>
<p>An excellent speech by Barrack Obama given at Georgetown calling for Energy Independence:</p>
<p><a href=“http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060920-092006_energy_independence_speech_-_moveon_progressive_vision_series/index.html[/url]”>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060920-092006_energy_independence_speech_-_moveon_progressive_vision_series/index.html</a></p>
<p>AM, my feeling is that once you’ve read the Globe, you’ve read the NY Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post. They present a similar point of view.</p>
<p>Actually, I also read the opinion page of the WSJ, just so I can predict what Driver and FS will post.</p>
<p>SJMom, this is what Logosprincipal wrote:
This is what you wrote when I objected:
What makes you think that it’s not you that’s simply repeating the Republican party “talking points”? </p>
<p>I don’t follow the Dem talking points. I don’t read blogs. I form my own opinions, based on the best information available to me, based on my best assessment of the reliability of that data. Unlike Driver, above, I don’t attack the messenger when the news isn’t to my liking, or elect to rely on anecdotal evidence from individual soldiers in favor of the formal written opinion of the Marines’ top intelligence officer. </p>
<p>Iraq is a mess. It’s not going to get any better by our continuing to do what we’ve been doing. The only reason we continue to put our soldiers out there to get maimed and killed at this point is to save face for the Administration, which has never, ever stepped up to the plate in a “the buck stops here” moment. I know you’d prefer to think otherwise, as that is the theme of the right wing “talking points” du jour, but facts are facts. We’re not fighting to win in Iraq, and unless we fish or cut bait more American soldiers are going to be maimed and die, without any realistic hope of accomplishing “the mission.”</p>
<p>well, if we had reporters over there with access, we could get some real facts, and the DoD, they are the ones that don’t count the third vehicle in a roadside bombing as being bombed…no, if that third car in the line hits the second who hit the first because of a bomb, that third car was involved in an “accident”, so instead of three trucks damaged in a bombing, its one, with two in accidents…sure…now that is supporting the troops, implying they are poor drivers when in facts their convoy was attacked…</p>
<p>when you have reports like that, who can trust others #s…</p>
<p>Question is, how much blood and treasure do we lose before the administration says “enough”? It’s only a matter of time, since this war is both unsustainable and unwinnable, but after 3000 lives, 4000, 5000? Should we let the war debt climb to $500B? When is enough, enough?</p>
<p>This Bush saving face bravado is so costly, in so many ways. I am amazed he has any supporters at all.</p>
<p>with the “new” intelligence report surfacing…and the military asking for billions more to just maintain…and more military getting deployed for longer…what is 40cents a gallon “savings”…</p>
<p>The war was won three years ago. We are not in a war now, but an occupation. </p>
<p>Mr. Cheap and Mr. Sleaze are just trying to deliver to their clients. Control the pipelines, build the military bases. They figured the locals would help 'em out, but they might not need them to deliver.</p>
<p>I’m glad the soldiers feel “positive” about what they are doing. We are sure paying enough for them to do it, and I’d hate for them to have spend their hitches there and feel otherwise. But the occupation isn’t about them, is it?</p>
<p>weenie,</p>
<p>Just because every civilian doesn’t have the specifics on every mission of the military doesn’t mean that the soldiers don’t know what their mission is or aren’t accomplishing it.</p>
<p>
Of course you don’t. 
I must have been dreaming. </p>
<p>Kluge, why be coy. You cannot be all things to all men, as they say. Be yourself and be proud. You certainly do attack the messenger…you don’t need to run away from that: Often with a modicum of wit, at times with raw emotion. Most do (and say they didn’t). </p>
<p>I’m on the record as being uncertain about the war. I was uncertain in the beginning and I am now. Or perhaps it would be more honest to say, I opposed the war and am uncomfortable with it now. </p>
<p>Still, it is at best too clever to pretend that the soldiers are opposing the war, or even that most do…as best as I can tell not even a platoon does. </p>
<p>It may be that you, mini, CGG, Allmusic and weenie will be proved to be right someday.
…But today is not that day. </p>
<p>The insurgency goes on.
Civil war is possible. The troops are there and the generals are not calling for them to leave but rather to fight on. There is a debate over more troops and a different strategy. But there is no serious debate, within the serving military, about pulling out now.</p>
<p>The venom directed at the state of affairs in Iraq by the Democratic left (at this point in the affair) is not only predictable, but predictably cruel. I’d say the same was true in Vietnam, but I’m just guessing.</p>
<p>So you say:
True. </p>
<p>
Perhaps you’re right. There are serious people who think so.
Your speaking with your spleen from your derriere here. You’re having one of those “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore moments.” Having it, that is, at the expense of Logosprincipal and Sjmom. I suspect they know it as well and will take it with a shaker of salt. </p>
<p>…some times you just gotta let it out.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>logos:
</p>
<p>Wow. I can’t believe you wrote that. How does this sound instead: </p>
<p>Just because no civilian has any idea what the mission of the military is (in Iraq), nor can any government official clearly articulate that mission, doesn’t mean the military doesn’t know what their mission is. Realy? It’s OK for the military to just be opertaing independently in a war? What???</p>
<p>FS:
Now, there’s a surprise.</p>
<p>Kluge, you may not read blogs or rely on anecdotes from career soldiers who have spent much of the last five years over there…but you do rely on the selective reporting of the NYT and its subsidiaries, and you are even more selective in quoting them to make your point; here’s the final paragraph of the article which you cherry-picked, without link or attribution:
I also haven’t “attacked” anything in this thread. To the contrary, in keeping with the recently expressed desire for more comity in the political threads, I’ve made an effort to be as salon-like as possible. If you want me to continue to comport myself in the manner of the Marquise du Chatelet, I suggest that you brush up on your best Voltaire-like manners and rhetoric, and stop slinging poo all over our brocaded walls.</p>
<p>It is about saving face…to think that is not at least a part of it is being naive…</p>
<p>It is getting worse, not better, not even leveling out, and as we went in with no real plan to get out, it is not at all surpising there is this mess</p>
<p>You have people in power in the Iraqi government that are supporting the insurgences</p>
<p>denying the intelleignce report that says this war has made more terrorists in the world or not acknowledging it, and not connecting it with our treatment of the Iraqi civilians somewhat is also naive and with blinders on</p>
<p>when up to 95% of those thrown in our jails over there turing out to be innocent, yet they were mistreated, how much would you trust the people who have invaded your country, made big promises, and yet, tens of thousands of your neighbors have been maimed and killed, and your men have been murdered and beaten by some of the very people who came to set you free</p>
<p>I know most soldiers are doing the best they can, but just a few can totally taint people’s feelings toward the occupiers, as we are seen over there by many,and when young men who were locked up for no reason and subjected to our version of interrogation, and they are finally freed, yeah, they should just let it go, cause freedom marches on</p>
<p>We can all hope that Iraq turns out like Vietnam 30 years later–generally peaceful and moving toward a market economy with a fair amount of freedom and little anti-American fervor. But I doubt it–the southeast Asian people are much smarter and calm.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0429/p06s01-woap.html[/url]”>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0429/p06s01-woap.html</a></p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>I don’t know what to say, a whole post directed in part to me without even a phoneme devoted to my voting habits.</p>
<p>…I’m gonna read it again just in case.</p>
<p>Weenie,
Perhaps you are taken aback by someone not knowing something and then, yikes!, saying so. Enjoy the moment—they’re rare indeed.</p>
<p>at least Nixon realized he needed an exit plan, unlike this group</p>
<p>FS- nothing was directed at you- it was a general statement</p>
<p>and what do you think of the released intelligence report…anything?</p>
<p>Voting is the most patriotic thing a person can do, on either side…and i just feel everyone should do whatever they can wherever they are to vote…it is what we are fighting for over there right?</p>
<p>It took Nixon a long time to give up and he upped the war before he gave up.</p>