|
| Mmm, from those 160.000 troops in Iraq are howmany in frontline service? You
know, those who are actualy the most vulnerable. 1 out of 10? 1 out of 15?
So if we take 1 out of 10, it's 60/10.000 men or 6/1000. And then we don't
count all the wounded, those who will not be able to walk, see, or hear
again (or a combination) or those who are missing limbs. In Vietnam this
ratio was 10/1. 10 severely wounded troops for every soldier killed. Sheds
another light on the subject.
"mark" <no> wrote in message
news:42ad2029$0$15970$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
quote:
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:OJ2re.4150$pa3.659@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> No Einstein it did not say that at all...let's all quote from the original
> post....
>
> "There have been an average of 160,000 troops stationed in Iraq during the
> last 22 months. During this time the ****firearm**** death total was 2,112
> for a ****firearm**** death rate of 60 per 100,000." (**** = my emphasis
> added).
>
> It specifically says firearm death rate...not the death rate by all means.
> If the original poster said the *total* death rate was 60 per 100,000 then
> it's a different story. FYI, a firearm is not an explosive device.
>
> No apology necessary.
>
|
|