Canadians in Kandahar six times more likely to die than U.S.
Newsbot @ Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:37 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=13538" target="_blank">Canadians in Kandahar six times more likely to die than U.S. soldier in Iraq</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=News_Links&file=category&catid=13" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Scape" target="_blank">Scape</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2006-09-18 07:57:27
<strong>Canadian</strong>
ridenrain @ Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:37 pm
"The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives"
This group are loony left crackpots, funded by the BC unions.
Did Jihad Jack tell them that, after his exhasutive study on the subject?
More dirt on these fools
Scape @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:52 am
Afghanistan deadlier for coalition troops than Iraq: study
This is an extention of an earlier study done by that rabidly left wing Royal Statistical Society. Your drooling Rain...
Streaker @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:56 am
You didn't bother reading the article, did you, ride? 
ridenrain @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:57 am
Did the BC NDP government give them free taxpayers money too?
Wes, I did look it over quickly and I did see that this follows the Brittish report. I simply don't believe that you can take a snapshot of the numbers and draw conclusions.
Someone at Proud to be Canadian put it better than me:
$1:
In my opinion, few organizations are or even could be more odiously left-wing and anti-Harper, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, anti-American, and anti-anything that isn’t overtly fringe left-wing and socialist to the core. But it’s front-page news to the liberal media which dutifully writes up any report they barf out.
IcedCap @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:04 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
"The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives"
This group are loony left crackpots, funded by the BC unions.
Did Jihad Jack tell them that, after his exhasutive study on the subject?
More dirt on these fools
This group are loony left crackpots, funded by the BC unions.
Did Jihad Jack tell them that, after his exhasutive study on the subject?
More dirt on these fools
Typical, when you can't argue with the results then attack the source. Why don't you go away for a few hours with a calculator and try and prove them wrong, tHE National Post obviously thinks the study must be factually based unless they haven't learn their lesson since the whole "Jews forced to wear stars in Iran" thing
meaden24 @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:24 am
there's really no point in debating anything, it's not like we're coming home just because there's a chance of death over there, we have a job to do and some nut job raghead killing one of us isn't going to detour them, it just gives people who are the "box score" watchers only saying something when someone dies, something to say so they can hear themselves talk again.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:25 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
Did the BC NDP government give them free taxpayers money too?
Wes, I did look it over quickly and I did see that this follows the Brittish report. I simply don't believe that you can take a snapshot of the numbers and draw conclusions.
Someone at Proud to be Canadian put it better than me:
Wes, I did look it over quickly and I did see that this follows the Brittish report. I simply don't believe that you can take a snapshot of the numbers and draw conclusions.
Someone at Proud to be Canadian put it better than me:
$1:
In my opinion, few organizations are or even could be more odiously left-wing and anti-Harper, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, anti-American, and anti-anything that isn’t overtly fringe left-wing and socialist to the core. But it’s front-page news to the liberal media which dutifully writes up any report they barf out.
Well, I find it funny that that a very right-wing newspaper considers this news. According to your buddy on PC, only LEFT-WING media are reporting on this? Hmmmm....
meaden24 @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:26 am
detour=detur
ridenrain @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:31 am
We know we are on the cutting edge of the fight. The military leadership told everyone that we should expect casualties. We have a smaller force commitment but the US has lost over 9 troops for every one of ours.
Without details on how they arrived at these figures, there is no way to prove it's wrong. Considering this was released on the day parliament goes back to work, I see this as pure political BS anyways.
IcedCap @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:10 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
We know we are on the cutting edge of the fight. The military leadership told everyone that we should expect casualties. We have a smaller force commitment but the US has lost over 9 troops for every one of ours.
Without details on how they arrived at these figures, there is no way to prove it's wrong. Considering this was released on the day parliament goes back to work, I see this as pure political BS anyways.
Without details on how they arrived at these figures, there is no way to prove it's wrong. Considering this was released on the day parliament goes back to work, I see this as pure political BS anyways.
hardly takes a genius to work it out...
Canadian deaths in Afghanistan since Feb / Total Canadian Troops rotated in Afghanistan since Feb
divided by
US deaths in Iraq since Feb / Total US Troops rotated in Iraq since Feb
You're constantly going on about media bias against the Afghanistan mission and the facts not being reported, seems to me what you really want is cheerleading rather than reporting.
I see nothing wrong or treacherous about this study, if there's an uncomfortable truth then try dealing with it instead of crying bias everytime
ridenrain @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:23 am
As I see it: For CDN forces to have 6 times the chance of being killed, and the US looses 9 to every one of ours, the US would have to have 54 troops to every one of ours.
No. Actually, I'm running down the source as politically driven, expecially on the first day back to work for our federal gov.
IcedCap @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:13 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
As I see it: For CDN forces to have 6 times the chance of being killed, and the US looses 9 to every one of ours, the US would have to have 54 troops to every one of ours.
which considering there's over 100,000 US troops in Iraq is seems quite plausible, 54 x 2,200 = guess what 118,000
ridenrain @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:51 am
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that it's politically driven.
It definately may be misleading because it assumes that this recent run of casualties will continue.
Scrappy @ Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:57 am
It's a war zone, what do the fucking so called experts expect? Jesus the media gets dumber everyday, why in gods name did we need a study to state the obvious? More wasted dollars. Of course there is a high risk of death, it's a war zone dah. Our men/women in uniform know this when they go, if they are okay with it who cares what the stats are.