democrats want control of the oil

#201
#201
allvol123 said:
You're saying it is misleading because the KIA part? The total deaths are not incorrect, you are in agreement on the total deaths?
Click to expand...

no, the total deaths are wrong in most cases too. Check pages 10 and 11 in that pdf file in the link
 
#202
#202
Basically what I am saying, is that I don't know what the hell he was thinking when he posted that.
 
#203
#203
The total deaths are out of whack. But the numbers are interesting. Much closer than I ever would have thought though.
 
#205
#205
To be honest, pro or anti-Iraq aside, this looks bad for Bill's tenure. Bush gets hammered on American deaths, but they are not much higher than the non-war years of Bill.
 
#206
#206
Heck, add up the murders in St louis and Detroit for the years we've been in Iraq and I bet those numbers are close too. We should redeploy there now!
 
#207
#207
But there were certainly not 14,000 soldiers killed on Clinton's watch. It was actually right at 7500
 
#208
#208
allvol123 said:
To be honest, pro or anti-Iraq aside, this looks bad for Bill's tenure. Bush gets hammered on American deaths, but they are not much higher than the non-war years of Bill.
Click to expand...
Yea while we are hard at work deflecting Bush's screw ups lets bring up Bills sex scandle.:pepper:
 
#211
#211
the fact of the matter is those comparing Iraq to Vietnam need to rethink said position. the two aren't in the same galaxy casualty wise.
 
#216
#216
allvol123 said:
To be honest, pro or anti-Iraq aside, this looks bad for Bill's tenure. Bush gets hammered on American deaths, but they are not much higher than the non-war years of Bill.
Click to expand...

If you subtract deaths due to hostile action that leaves Bush with 9128 (note: I basically averaged the two years prior for 2007 and projected 2008 the number I decided on was 3700 for the two years combined and 1500 due to hostile action).

Clinton would be left with 6996. 2100 less. Factor in that Clinton served during peacetime and you can say that they are pretty much even.

However, Bush isn't getting hammered on the 9128 soldiers that died in other ways, he is getting hammered on the ones that died in combat.
 
#222
#222
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Thats because all the choopers and planes the soldiers were flying around in during the Clinton administration were from the Vietnam era.
Click to expand...

well then why did the accidental deaths suddenly nose dive sometime around the beginning of the Clinton administration?
 
#224
#224
emainvol said:
If you subtract deaths due to hostile action that leaves Bush with 9128 (note: I basically averaged the two years prior for 2007 and projected 2008 the number I decided on was 3700 for the two years combined and 1500 due to hostile action).

Clinton would be left with 6996. 2100 less. Factor in that Clinton served during peacetime and you can say that they are pretty much even.

However, Bush isn't getting hammered on the 9128 soldiers that died in other ways, he is getting hammered on the ones that died in combat.
Click to expand...

Then approval ratings should have been at 30% on day 1 of the war, death will come with combat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top