Your stat for the military deaths is too simplistic. You're assuming that the same 2500 soldiers have been there the entire time. You're also assuming the the 2500 number is the number of soldiers that have been there each year when it could have been 3017 one year and 2534 another. If there have been 2500 different soldiers each year, the death rate is going to be vastly different. And before you put more words in my mouth, I know it's still higher by far than the stat you came up with.

And don't assume you know anything about what I know about statistics. I never said anything about the stats. I was clarifying the original post for someone I thought didn't get the OP at first.

whoa, deja vu

what?

If there are 2500 soldiers posted there at any one time, even if the same soldiers are posted there for all 5 years or if there are 2500 new soldiers each year, the fatality rate is still (on average) 11.4 per year.

that number will not increase or decrease regardless of how many soldiers have been cycled thorugh the system. as long as there are always 2500, that number will always be the same.

the rest of your argument (that I don't "know" the troop count has been the same) is correct but since the canadian troop deployment has actually been increasing that means the ratio is even higher. 2500 soldiers is the current deployment and I haven't been able to find specific data about previous years.

Edit: I was not trying to compute the exact ratio here or accurately crunch highway and military fatality statistics, I was trying to prove darth evad does not have a scrap of logical reasoning and did so by using the given data to establish a theoretical lower limit for the ratio (32). If you find the exact numbers and calculate the exact ratio it will not be lower than 32. thank you for your consideration.

I was just suggesting that you might be bad at statistics and probability and it turns out I was right I guess

Uh, what? It doesn't matter if they are different soldiers, it only matters if there are about 2500 soldiers there per year, and about 4.5 of them die.

Per thousand that are stationed there. I get that. That number is fluid is all I meant to get at. While the total serving is 2500 numbers are coming and going at any given time.

yes but the number per thousand is still the same as long as there are 2500 stationed there at any time. it doesn't matter if they're the same people or not. the number per thousand is the same, the overall average is the same.

Yes, I get that you qualified the death rate to "per stationed there". Even said it in my last post.

have I ever not qualified my fatality rate like that?

your first post on this page still makes no sense

You (general you) could look at the total number of soldiers who have severed in Afghanistan and get a fatality rate from that number as well is what I was trying, but failed, to say before.

actually from what I understand the canadian soldier fatality rate in afghanistan decreased with the us deployment decrease. there are too many variables in order to make a simple calculation which is why I settled for a theoretical lower limit of 32.

either way my point was just to prove that evad doesn't understand statistics and probability. i accomplished my mission but was then dragged into a multi-post quagmire. why does this keep happening to good, honest conservatives

actually this was my jackass way of wondering why canadians, and maybe americans in their current situation, are upset over losing military soldiers in a war zone, specifically canadians in afghanistan at 11.?/yr.
take traffic, murder, drowning etc etc and when you look at it being a canadian in afghanistan doesn't seem all that dangerous.
i spoke to a captain in the canadian military stationed north of kandahar at the governors palace. he was having a good time. he seemed to be dodging about as many bullets as private citizens living in toronto are right now except he could order a couple of hellfires launched to defend himself.

Haha you know what I just realized?

There are more Soldiers in my Brigade than Canada deploys every year

the afghanistan canadian mortality rate is (bottom limit) 4.56 per thousand.

taking into account all deaths due to accidental injury and all homicide, the mortality rate (as of 2003) is 0.264 per thousand.

Lower limit (all causes of death not due to disease) is 17 times more likely to die in Afghanistan from any cause other than personal health issues (heart disease, cancer, renal failure, congential disorders, etc.)

you're getting closer but you're still off

also I don't know why you're surprised that commissioned officers wouldn't be patrolling the streets but you really shouldn't be

Yeah, Honestly, My Battalion Commander goes on patrols.

I'm guessing it's because the ratio of people with logic to those who want to get shot at is smaller here.

So you're saying those over here in defense of their country are less intelligent than those who chose not to defend their country?

ha! what i'm saying/asking is why are canadians making such a big deal out of people who sign up to possibly take a bullet for their country dieing when you can walk down yonge street in toronto and possibly take a bullet? they're there to stand in harms way for the right for girls to go to school etc. why are we outraged when soldiers at war or in peace keeping occupations die?

really?

because by the way the thread sounded you were implying that afghanistan is safer than canada is and therefore belittling the efforts of our soldiers who are policing a warzone.

at least if you were right you'd have that but you're not. you're whole orders of magnitude off in fact.

How is fighting in the middle east defending your country? Wouldn't the defense be on home soil?

Because we are less than 1% of the population who keeps whats over here from coming to home soil.

Since when did the middle east pose any threat to the US before troops were sent there? You went in there without first having to defend, making you the attackers.


You aren't defending your home country. You went somewhere else first.

Since 9/11

I'm not saying they pose an Immediate threat, But if we hadn't stepped in when we did they would have.

The only connection I see between Iraq and Al Queda are the Q's. Since when did the hunt for Bin Laden end? Why aren't you 'defending' against the ones to attacked us instead of somewhere else liberating oil fields?

Whatever happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

I don't know if you're aware or not; I'm not sure if they show this kind of stuff on CNN which is obviously where you're getting your information, But we STILL deploy to Afghanistan. I know a lot of people who have gone trugding through the mountains of Afghanistan.

And I mean, If you look at history, We sorta created the the terrorists.
During the Gulf War, We GAVE Osama and his followers weapons, training and helped develop Tora Bora, Which is the cave system he is believed to be hiding in, And instilled this "Jihad" BS in the Arabic people.

So, Yeah, We're justified being over here. Cleaning up what we started.

I don't watch CNN.

So you're not defending your country, then? You're cleaning what you started?

Why not say that instead?

nope that's hitler

ww2 never ended

Was that not before the gulf war, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

I'm defending my country BY helping to finish what was started.

You're right. My Mistake TM