Whoah! This is one serious barking moonbat. For an example, from the second paragraph no less:
Sheehan and Hurricane Katrina remind us that as the war’s effects are much broader
Since she doesn't explain any link between the war and hurricanes, I'm going to assume that she's still working off the thoroughly disproven legend that the rescue attempts after the hurricane were reduced because of all the troops serving in Iraq. But, that's just a guess. She drops this little bomb & moves on.
For example, during World War II, U.S. industrial workers were more likely than U.S. soldiers to die or be injured.
Once again, no references to where this fact comes from or how those numbers were compiled or compared. I tend to believe the statement, but I seriously doubt it tells the full story. I tried to find somewhere that might have the military & civilian death rates during WWII, but I couldn't find good numbers. I suspect it means counting all serving military, including those nowhere near combat and including all civilians, even those in combat (and there were more than a few of those). Still, we'll never know.
With the destruction of Iraq’s economy, women and girls have suffered especially from deprivations.
I'm assuming she's talking about our destruction of their economy. Last I heard it was Sadam did that, but of course he was a man. 'Nough said. It just goes on & on. Have a good laugh.
2 comments:
The death/injury rate is so excessively distortive that its an outright lie. Are they really trying to compare combat deaths/injuries to civilian deaths/injuries? First you have to separate off deaths from injuries. You can't combine a statistic that is highly unlikely to have any similarities.
Combat deaths were on average 6,639 KIA per month. I'm going to find it highly improbable that the percentage of industrial deaths to civilians ever approached that of military deaths. To even suggest them as part of the statistic is clearly indicative of distortion.
As for injuries, I find that statement to be even more ludicrous. The industrial base had a substatially larger number of people involved. Percentage wise I find it highly improbable that injuries were more likely in industry. Not to mention the comparison to soldiers has more similarity to comparing to civilian workers. That would have to add in all secrataries, engineers, janitors and other low risk, though associated workers.
I'm going to say that I find those quotes as being absurd.
I think it's utter BS, but seriously, you could get a higher death rate for civilians than for the military. You don't count industrial accidents alone, you count every single death from heart attacks to automobile accidents. Then you just compare that to combat deaths. TaDa, much more dangerous to be home than to be in the military. Also, you & I worked in industry and we read history. In industry, every single scrape or bruise that gets recorded is an "injury on the job." While, out in the field, guys are getting cut, gouged, bruised & banged up constantly. It's not until chunks of you go sailing away that an "injury" gets reported. What & how things are counted make all the difference. So, until we see what & how, we can call the moonbat a moonbat, or stupid, or gullible, but I doubt they're "lying" because they've got the "numbers" to prove what they said. Those numbers equate to utter BS of course.
I loved the article. I've read it twice. My favorite part is that most of her quotes with notes or references are from her own stuff. You have to love that the best authority on any subject is yourself.
Post a Comment