It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Countermeasures
For the sake of the population, DRAFT!!!
Originally posted by skippytjc
Nygen, the rotation does need to be factored in. We cant assume these troops arent falling prey to thier own death rate when not in action back home during the time we are measuring.
So, we are assuming that people die at a rate of .20% in civillian life vs .16% during combat in Iraq. But not all 955,000 were fighting at the same time, so a portion were always at the home death rate of .20%
aceofbase
The Iraq war deaths may only count those who died in Iraq not in Germany of the US.
The time scales are different
can only guess this not having ever fought in a war, but Im sure most dont think about injury, they think about dying
, fighting in iraq is not much more dangerous than living a regular life back home.
If I was one of those deserting cowards hiding in Canada right now, Im sure I wouldnt be happy learning this statistic.
mean, we all assume everything has gone to hell over there from what we see and hear on the news. But the actual statistics show it isnt as bad as we think.
aceofbase
Surely that's higher than the civilian population.
Originally posted by Frith
I doubt staying in a warzone is beneficial to your health. Especially with all the depleted uranium dust flying about and the fact that if you're american you'd stick out like a sore thumb/target.
With the massive lies that led up to the war I see no reason to think that the lies would stop once the war has gone on for a while.
Plus the known fact that many soldiers are transferred out of Iraq before they die from their wounds which leaves them off the body count absolutely messes with those numbers.
Originally posted by skippytjc
I bet that the death rate of US soldiers in Iraq vs the quantity served is LOWER than if those very same males in their age groups would suffer back at home living a “normal” life.
Anybody else think I am right on this?
Originally posted by Delta 38
How's the old saying go...Statisitcs never lie but only liars use statisitics.
Originally posted by skippytjc
To MBF and Grady:
You are totally right. But the bottom line is the rate of death in combat in Iraq is lower than the normal mortality rate of civilians living normal lives. Of course there are a galizion factors and conditions that would sku the numbers. And of course I am still not running to the recruiter to enlist.
But the plain hard fact is, if these 955,000 soldiers were at home right now, they would be dying at a faster rate than soldiers in combat are in Iraq. Simple fact.
[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]
Originally posted by RedDragon
Originally posted by skippytjc
To MBF and Grady:
You are totally right. But the bottom line is the rate of death in combat in Iraq is lower than the normal mortality rate of civilians living normal lives. Of course there are a galizion factors and conditions that would sku the numbers. And of course I am still not running to the recruiter to enlist.
But the plain hard fact is, if these 955,000 soldiers were at home right now, they would be dying at a faster rate than soldiers in combat are in Iraq. Simple fact.
[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]
To count the deaths while in Iraq you'd calculate /120,000 , not 955,000. That'd be 1700/120000 which is a lot higher. That's even with the skewed death count. The real number is arround 9,000 probably. 9000/120000
Oh, and .2 is higher than .17. So, even if you divide the real figure by about 6 or 7, it's still higher. Which means the real count (i'm too lazy to do the math on a calculator atm) with 1700 troops is about 6 times higher.
[edit on 7/6/05 by RedDragon]
You are completly wrong Red. You cannot use the number that are there at one time, you must use the number that have served as a whole, as the death count includes all that have served, not just whos there right now. read the entire thread please to understand.
Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
You are completly wrong Red. You cannot use the number that are there at one time, you must use the number that have served as a whole, as the death count includes all that have served, not just whos there right now. read the entire thread please to understand.
If you include the entire number of people who haved served in Iraq then you must include in the statistics the deaths which occured while not in Iraq. . . you have to include all deaths within the group.
You are not doing this you are only including deaths while in Iraq so you have proved nothing, and your 'statistics' are completely spurious.