Armed Forces = No Respect

It wasn't a UN report. The study in question was one done by the Lancet. It came to a figure in 2006 of approx 650,00 dead. It has been widely descredited since by both pro and anti war sources. Interestingly the study seemed to get almost half it's funding from an anti-war source and was led by an anti-war professor. Make of that what you will.

Iraqi Body Count (another anti war site) is generally considered to be the most accurate. It puts the death toll considerably lower but Iraq still paid a pretty high cost in terms of dead. Sadly the majority of them are from insurgent activity so Iraqi killing Iraqi or "Foriegn Freedom Fighter" killing Iraqi.
 
The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error. The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: it surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq.
Click to expand...

I dont understand how 1,000 families is too small yet 1,849 is enough. Also there seems to be a very large margin of error '426,369 to 793,663'. I have to say im rather surpirsed that this method is used and accepted for conflicts. It has an element of pot luck to it. You could interview 2,000 different families and get completely different figures.

I would say it is best to take into account all the different reports. The site Iraq body count only uses report deaths while the report you posted is estimated deaths. I suppose there will be no way to know the exact figure but i think we can agree its not to the same scale and what the germans did in WW2?
 
Repta said:
I dont understand how 1,000 families is too small yet 1,849 is enough. Also there seems to be a very large margin of error '426,369 to 793,663'. I have to say im rather surpirsed that this method is used and accepted for conflicts. It has an element of pot luck to it. You could interview 2,000 different families and get completely different figures.

I would say it is best to take into account all the different reports. The site Iraq body count only uses report deaths while the report you posted is estimated deaths. I suppose there will be no way to know the exact figure but i think we can agree its not to the same scale and what the germans did in WW2?
Click to expand...

No it's no on the same scale. But lets take the middle figure of 426,369. That's still just under half a million dead.
 
Wow, some of the comments in here are verging on the unbelievably inane.

The Armed Forces deserve nothing but respect, as has been stated previously.

The people comparing coalition troop's actions to those in WW2 are extremely insulting. I suggest you get your heads out your arses and get some ****ing perspective.
 
Zefan said:
Wow, some of the comments in here are verging on the unbelievably inane.

The Armed Forces deserve nothing but respect, as has been stated previously.

The people comparing coalition troop's actions to those in WW2 are extremely insulting. I suggest you get your heads out your arses and get some ****ing perspective.
Click to expand...

Did you do a search for "armed forces" and are since bumping all, fairly recent, topics that came up? :p
 
tis a bit ridiculess - even if they've had problems with gorups of squaddies in the past a bit of common sense is in order surely - that guy was by himself and a little bit older than the normal scrotes who'd be causing trouble - what did they reasonably think he'd do - have a fight with himself in the bar ?????
 
PaulStat said:
Can't say I have any contempt for them, and I have respect for the difficulties they must face doing their job. But I'm not proud of them, at least not this generation, there's noimmediate threat to our country, I don't believe any of the currently active Servicemen are defending our country as such.
Click to expand...

Its true, if a new threat appears we can just click our fingers and *poof* a trained and experienced military appears out of thin air.
 
What are squadies in the scheme of things over there in the military?

Reserves?
 
PaulStat said:
Can't say I have any contempt for them, and I have respect for the difficulties they must face doing their job. But I'm not proud of them, at least not this generation, there's noimmediate threat to our country, I don't believe any of the currently active Servicemen are defending our country as such.
Click to expand...
We were caught with our trousers down in both world wars. I'd go as far to say at the moment the military is way underfunded and overstretched - and it's heading to the same. Realistically, if it wasn't for the navy, we're not in a position to defend the country. Even that is debatable.

Besides, the military that you have no respect for (or not proud of) do an awful lot of humanitarian work, and are a reliable chain in the event of natural disasters home and abroad. They're also responsible for peace-keeping and training other countries.

So it's hardly as if they exist solely to protect against threats to the UK.
 
I would say squaddies is exclusively for Army, as is Pongo's and Grunt's (was a US term now seems to be creeping into use). The Army/Navy call the RAF Crabs or Crabfats, and the Army/RAF sometimes call the Navy Fish-heads or Anchor Clankers. Matelot is an accepted term used by all for Navy, including the Navy when refering to other ratings. Navy call submariners bubble-heads and submariners call sailors in ships skimmers. It's all good natured banter, the names seem endless. RAF Regiment are known as Rocks or Rockapes or Pebble Monkeys whilst the RAF Regt refer to RAF as 'Guins (shortened form of Penguins, from the days when RAF personnel wore a shirt and tie routinely). Royal Marines call fellow marines Royals whilst Navy call RM 's Bootnecks or Booties (from the US Marine term Leatherneck). It's all a laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom