Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chowder who wrote (21781)	10/8/2004 6:32:37 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

Dabum, re: Personally, I think young people are safer in a war zone than on our highways and in some of our neighborhoods. More people died on our highways during the Viet Nam war years than died in combat. Narrow your inquiry a little and you may not feel so comfortable. In Vietnam when we had over a half million men "fighting" the war, I've read that 80% of the casualties were incurred in the 50 combat infantry battalions fighting there. Each battalion has about 500 fighting men. When we were losing 13,000 or so DEAD every year, therefor, about 10,000 of them were from those 25,000 men. And some of those 25,000 men were battalion support troops. In my company and our sister company we usually had a total of about 130-170 men in the jungle. During the year I was there the casualties in our two companies, that I knew of, were over 60 men DEAD. I don't think that was unusual for the companies that were doing the fighting. So don't give me that "safe" apology. Your kids might be clerks or they might not. If they're not, you can't just take some number and put a percentage on it. Someone is up front taking the bullets and to try to pretend we're not asking something of them that merits our being certain that we're not only right, but that we can win, is distasteful.