Fact?

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Aramike

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by fatty

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification.

Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

[Digital_Trucker]

2,112 deaths/ 22 months = 96 deaths per month
96 deaths per month / 160,000 average monthly troop level = 60 in 100,000 probability of death in a one month period

Have no idea where the DC number came from, but the Iraq number is correct

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by fatty

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification.



Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

*Sighs again*

Here's the math:

2112 Deaths in 22 months.
Average Soldier Population is 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 per 100,000
1320 / 22 = 60 Deaths per 100,000 per month.

Do you get it now? We're right back to that magical word, "monthly".

[August]

Or more simply about 1 in 1700.

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

IIRC From the Revolution to WW2 the US kia rate averaged about 1 in 15. In Vietnam it was about 1 in 1500.

[baggygreen]

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

Very true. That is a sad part of the "game" unfortunately.

I did understand where fatty was coming from too, btw. But he was a tad too insistant upon his being correct after his error was pointed out...

Oh well, all in good fun...

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

Yep, same thing here in Holland when 1 guy bites the bullet. Big national drama. What the h**l did they expect?! A frickin picknick?!

Though it has to be said that IMHO the army itself is to blaim in this; they promote themselves as a great opportunity to start a career and get an education. Kids around here (I don't call 'm kids because of their age) don't join out of patriotism or because they want to fight for something good, it's because they see a career opportunity. The fact that you get sent on mission out of country is cleverly left out of the promotional material...

"You want to work on apache's, or even fly them? Want to ride in a tank? Want exictement and an education? Join the army!"

I call those guys kids because they actually fall for the propaganda without realizing they could die while in service.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?

LOL

(you joke, yes?)

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?

As far as I know there has been no declared end to the Iraq war.