Comments on: Do Not Believe the Statistics http://www.rhodytrader.com/do-not-believe-the-statistics/ The Musings of a Trading and Investing Addict Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:07:07 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John http://www.rhodytrader.com/do-not-believe-the-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-427 John Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:25:37 +0000 http://www.rhodytrader.com/?p=479#comment-427 Duc - The program didn't address at all any of the things you brought up. It was basically an anti-war piece that focused on how the gov't manipulates public opinion. The figures were presented in a manner to suggest that increased civilian casualties are a result of what the gov't is doing with it's war policy. It didn't speak at all to the kind of tactics you've pointed out or the changes in the manner of war. Kind of ironic that the producers used the same sort of trick with those stats (knowingly or otherwise) that they were railing against the gov't using. Duc – The program didn’t address at all any of the things you brought up. It was basically an anti-war piece that focused on how the gov’t manipulates public opinion. The figures were presented in a manner to suggest that increased civilian casualties are a result of what the gov’t is doing with it’s war policy. It didn’t speak at all to the kind of tactics you’ve pointed out or the changes in the manner of war. Kind of ironic that the producers used the same sort of trick with those stats (knowingly or otherwise) that they were railing against the gov’t using.

]]> By: ducati998 http://www.rhodytrader.com/do-not-believe-the-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-426 ducati998 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:50:05 +0000 http://www.rhodytrader.com/?p=479#comment-426 John, Just to highlight your post: "There was a set of statistics presented to highlight how the proportion of non-combatant casualties has risen from war to war." If you are talking about a proportion: Civilian casualties/Military casualities then the program is correct, due to, as you say, falling combatant deaths. The point the program "might" be making is due to technological progress, the manpower element of warfare is being reduced. This would lead to smaller military personnel deaths. Due to this technological progress, standing armies in the battlefield are obsolete. The guerilla style of warfare, using human shields is now tactically [from Vietnam] the way to go. This will inevitably raise non-combatant deaths. Another example recently was in Palestine with civilian populations serving as a human shield against superior Israeli weaponary. It is possibly this trend the program was seeking to highlight. [I haven't seen the program, so only guessing] jog on duc John,

Just to highlight your post:

“There was a set of statistics presented to highlight how the proportion of non-combatant casualties has risen from war to war.”

If you are talking about a proportion: Civilian casualties/Military casualities then the program is correct, due to, as you say, falling combatant deaths.

The point the program “might” be making is due to technological progress, the manpower element of warfare is being reduced. This would lead to smaller military personnel deaths.

Due to this technological progress, standing armies in the battlefield are obsolete. The guerilla style of warfare, using human shields is now tactically [from Vietnam] the way to go. This will inevitably raise non-combatant deaths.

Another example recently was in Palestine with civilian populations serving as a human shield against superior Israeli weaponary.

It is possibly this trend the program was seeking to highlight. [I haven't seen the program, so only guessing]

jog on
duc

]]>