But a hallmark of the Iraq war is the high wounded-to-killed ratio, partly because of advances in battlefield medicine, enhanced protective gear worn by soldiers and reinforced armored vehicles.

There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq, compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/...TEb9AwJANX6GMA

Is this a positive thing or a negative thing I fail to understand,Positive as it has helped in saving human lives,Negative as it has helped the administration in covering the nasty truth about this Deadlies war.
I still fail to comprehend how can a bunch of insurgents whom the world believes to be from the stone age construct weapons of such magnitude with their own bare hands.The reputation of America being a super power has taken a serious Dent.Thank You Mr.Bush

...first time.

__________________
EU : Portable Stereo AM/FM Radio Cassette Recorder
CIS (Russia) : АМ/ЧМ Stereo Magnitola
US : Boombox (Ghettoblaster)

LMFAO.

You do understand that DEADLY = death?

So, attempting to count injuries as "deaths" to make it appear more deadly? That's just silly.

Healthcare advances have helped to make war less "deadly." Most of us consider this a good thing, but I know to the anti-war folks, bad news is good news. And good news? It's bad news.

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

That is because of advances in medicine, and the quickness of CASEVACs (casualty evacuation). In Iraq right now, once you are wounded they can have you to a trauma unit within 5 minutes. Within 8 hours (maybe it was 12 hours, I will check when I get to work later on) you are in Germany and being prepped for surgery (if you need to be that is). They did not have that ability in Vietnam. Meaning a higher percentage of people died in Vietnam because they were not able to receive proper medical care soon enough.

The number of IMDs are roughly the same. IMDs are the people that will die no matter what you do for them.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

The point is that Americans hear the number 4,000 for casualties and they don't understand the full picture of the costs of this war.

Americans are woefully misinformed about the number of injuries and the significance LONG TERM on the Fed budget and the families of the injured vets. Hundreds of thousands of vets have applied for disability and the cost of providing disability to vets goes up every year. The U.S. taxpayer spends over 20 Billion a year covering disability benefits for Vietnam and Gulf War 1 vets. Can you even imagine what those costs will be for this war? Of course, the money is only part of the story. The personal tragedies are the other part.

Always about money isn't it.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

far as I am concerned, the war has been a senseless tragedy in every possible way. In the "business" of war it is routine to think about a cost/benefit analysis. If Americans are generally clueless about the costs of war, then they cannot exercise their duty; they cannot make informed votes. The Administration has intentionally funded the war with borrowed money and kept the public in the dark about the true costs.

Can you please elaborate on these costs and how they make this war the deadliest in our history?

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

It may have been said in some other thread on the subject.

But just how stupid are you people? I mean saying "the costs of the war are higher than they appear" would be reasonable.

But the DEADLIEST WAR.

We lost over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND in WWII. And that's killed! Iraq wounded and killed together are still two orders of magnetude lower!!!

Vietnam wasn't nearly as deadly but we're still nowhere remotely close!

In part yea when you are making generations from now pay for it.