But Don’t Let That Stop You

56 Replies to “But Don’t Let That Stop You”

1. I would estimate that at least 20-25 of those could have been avoided had we used heavy choppers for resupply runs (instead of road convoys) as the Yanks, Brits and Dutch do – except we have not such choppers and no prospect of getting any until after the Afghan question is decided, one way or the other. The Libs sent our guys to Afstan without a clue as to what they were getting them into or what they would do when they got there – and now that they are out of power they call for us to run away.

2. TG…you are right on the money with that statement,the spilling of our boys blood anywhere is tragic,but let’s compare the numbers here ie.taliban killed in combat compared to our boys,something our country would be very proud of,if they only knew.

3. ET: Let it happen; let Canada boast a bit about it finally reclaiming a military responsibility in the world.
   Three aircraft carriers to start, one for each coast and one in reserve/upgrade. OK, sorry, make that five.

4. TG wrote: 74 heroes lost over six years? Holding off an enemy who fight in the most cowardly manner using children?
   What he said. Great post.

5. Fred – that would be Political Science. And I’m working now.
   Dweeb.

6. Throbbin,
   The statistics may be technically accurate but they are invalid. The difference escapes most retarded humanities students as they are taught what to think instead of how to think.
   If what you are comparing are not equivalent, your conclusions will not be meaningful.
   Apples to Oranges.
   You compare death rates of combat troops, not all troops. The comparison is not valid if you mix incomparable variables.
   It’s the same manipulation of the truth the soft-on-crime lot try to fool you with. They compare the crime rates over time without any adjustment for the aging of the population. The reason this is not an accurate or valid comparison (and notice that they almost always use the 1960’s as their benchmark rate) is that the demographics of society has mirrored the aging of the baby boomers. With that bubble of people, the crime rate skyrocketed for two reasons: higher crime per capita in the crime-committing ages which equates to 14 to 45 or so. The second being the bubble of people through their life-cycle. As the boomers grew up, the crime rate rose – peaking in the 1960’s when they were all in their teens and twenties. After this they gradually calmed down and their criminal behaviour slackened. As the boomers age, the crime rate falls due entirely to their aging as this skews the percentage of the population falling above the usual crime-committing age.
   If you restate rates to include only the crimes per capita of people between the ages of 14 and 45, the crime rate didn’t lessen with the boomers but has increased from the time before the boomers and has kept increasing after the boomers – it’s just that there are less people in this age group and more people over 50. This is the reason the half-witted journalists say that crime is down on one hand, but youth crime is way up. The difference is that old people are included in the first stat but the second is impervious to societal demographics because it only counts crime by people under 18 as a percentage of people of that age group. In other words, it compares a consistent variable over time and is thus meaningful and accurate.
   To make comparisons, you have to adjust the data to make it equivalent. Otherwise, you are making an error or you’re lying. In media, I’m sure there’s a equal drollop of both.
   Now go to school and demand your money back – you got ripped off.