Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
U.S. General
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)" data-source="post: 750096" data-attributes="member: 12570"><p>Agreed but I still contend his numbers are skewed and a ratio would be more accurate.</p><p> </p><p>For example, let's say there were 100 deaths in March 2005 with 100,000 troops deployed. This would give a casualty rate of .1% Now, let's say that there were 500 deaths in March 2010 with 500,000 troops deployed. This would also give a casualty rate of .1%. Without this ratio, the figure of 500 casualties would certainly jump off the page.</p><p> </p><p>Troop surges invariably lead to more casualties in the short term but less overall than if the surge had not taken place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UpstateNYUPSer(Ret), post: 750096, member: 12570"] Agreed but I still contend his numbers are skewed and a ratio would be more accurate. For example, let's say there were 100 deaths in March 2005 with 100,000 troops deployed. This would give a casualty rate of .1% Now, let's say that there were 500 deaths in March 2010 with 500,000 troops deployed. This would also give a casualty rate of .1%. Without this ratio, the figure of 500 casualties would certainly jump off the page. Troop surges invariably lead to more casualties in the short term but less overall than if the surge had not taken place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
U.S. General
Top