I'm not against the war and I have no liberal agenda. I just like to verify information before I'm willing to repeat it. You claim that the average number of deaths between 1980 and 2000 is 1586, but no data remotely of this type is on the website you linked to. The website you linked only shows Iraq-related casualties.I'm not questioning your analysis or your math skills. I am just asking where your data comes from. You provided a link to only half of it.
The problem is not that you are adding 2 and 2, but the fact that you are ignoring a whole lot of other numbers. You are saying that the total military deaths on average is down, but in your figures for Iraq you are only counting the deaths in battle, where these deaths are ADDITIONAL deaths, and should be added to the number of natural and accidental deaths in places that are not Iraq. You are not including the deaths outside Iraq and afghanistan in the total for military deaths. That is why the number is lower than what it is expected to be.
You are talking REPORTED murders in Philadelphia, as opposed to the REPORTED murder rate in Iraq. The problem here is that ALL the murders in Philadelphia are reported, but only a fraction of those in Iraq are reported.
If you have a look at the TITLE of the website, it is dedicated to fatalities in the IRAQ battlezone. It does not include military deaths outside Iraq. You are comparing a (large) fraction of military deaths with the TOTAL military death count for previous years. So there is going to be a discrepancy isnt there?
Take a major US City Philly; As of November 2007 (11/25), the murder rate in Philadelphia is more than the rate of coalition and civilian killed in Iraq. Philly is at one per day per 1.5 million. Iraq is at 15 per day per 27.5 million.Thus, Philly’s rate is .67 per day per million, anf Iraq’s is .55 per day per million.
So what you are implying is that the American soldiers in Iraq are safer in a WAR ZONE than back in the States?It sounds like the statistics are being juggled here, certain types of casualties that were being counted in the 1980s not being counted today. And are the military contractors being included today? Those doing work that would, during the 80s, have been done by military personnel? There are THOUSANDS of those people in Iraq... Of course Iraqi fatalities are not being counted at all...
The last two answers seem correct. The media plays an" important" role in matters of public reaction.
I'm not against the war and I have no liberal agenda. I just like to verify information before I'm willing to repeat it. You claim that the average number of deaths between 1980 and 2000 is 1586, but no data remotely of this type is on the website you linked to. The website you linked only shows Iraq-related casualties.I'm not questioning your analysis or your math skills. I am just asking where your data comes from. You provided a link to only half of it.
No just include all military deaths, both inside and outside the battlefield like those you quote for before the Iraq war.
The problem is not that you are adding 2 and 2, but the fact that you are ignoring a whole lot of other numbers. You are saying that the total military deaths on average is down, but in your figures for Iraq you are only counting the deaths in battle, where these deaths are ADDITIONAL deaths, and should be added to the number of natural and accidental deaths in places that are not Iraq. You are not including the deaths outside Iraq and afghanistan in the total for military deaths. That is why the number is lower than what it is expected to be.
You are talking REPORTED murders in Philadelphia, as opposed to the REPORTED murder rate in Iraq. The problem here is that ALL the murders in Philadelphia are reported, but only a fraction of those in Iraq are reported.
If you have a look at the TITLE of the website, it is dedicated to fatalities in the IRAQ battlezone. It does not include military deaths outside Iraq. You are comparing a (large) fraction of military deaths with the TOTAL military death count for previous years. So there is going to be a discrepancy isnt there?
Some people want 2+2 to equal 3 but no matter what its always going to equal 4
Some people want 2+2 to equal 3 but no matter what its always going to equal 4
Take a major US City Philly; As of November 2007 (11/25), the murder rate in Philadelphia is more than the rate of coalition and civilian killed in Iraq. Philly is at one per day per 1.5 million. Iraq is at 15 per day per 27.5 million.Thus, Philly’s rate is .67 per day per million, anf Iraq’s is .55 per day per million.
What do you want, the name of each casualty?
Look it up
The soldiers are doing what they volunteered and were trained to do.
The link you've provided only summarizes military casualties since the Iraq war. Where is the rest of this data?
I find this data sketchy at best.
So what you are implying is that the American soldiers in Iraq are safer in a WAR ZONE than back in the States?It sounds like the statistics are being juggled here, certain types of casualties that were being counted in the 1980s not being counted today. And are the military contractors being included today? Those doing work that would, during the 80s, have been done by military personnel? There are THOUSANDS of those people in Iraq... Of course Iraqi fatalities are not being counted at all...