Reply #26: Insults aside...

[cynatnite]

which I was not doing and you seem to enjoy in order to feel superior, the fact remains experts in these areas cite better technology in warfare and in medicine is why the casualty rate remains lower than Vietnam.

I think it's safe to say these men know what they are talking about. They are the ones making the comparisons. Even my feeble mind can read English. They are the military experts and using ratios and the frequency of attacks do help gage intensity.

Also, this isn't my evidence. This is what is in the article I cited. With that small data provided I asked the question. It's not stupid and it's something we should begin asking. It's easy to dismiss on the surface which you have apparently done by throwing out numbers.

Vietnam was not in a civil war while the US was there. Vietnam wasn't stuck in the middle of a powder keg like Iraq is. Vietnam doesn't have fighters coming in from all sides just so they can kill Americans and martyr themselves in the process. Vietnam also didn't have Rumsfeld.

BTW, using insults in order to make a point severely weakens any argument you make.