slick rick da rula: blog 
the unpolitically incorrect spot
response
Published Nov. 5, 2009Views: 618
"in all honesty, i think we're more loyal to the uk than they are to us."
this was a comment that i made earlier. to this comment, haggis replied:
"Slick, you really are a deeply ignorant person. UK losses in Afghanistan are higher per capita than US ones are."
OK. Most of you know that I am a man of facts (supported by sources) so, here's the well educated truth.
UK Population : 61,383,000
UK Deaths in Afghanistan: 229
UK Troops in Afghanistan: 9500
Total UK $ Spent: $6.6 billion
So, a total of 0.00037% of the British population has died in Afghanistan, while 0.015% of their total population is serving in Afghanistan. They have spent about $107 (USD) per citizen on the war (4.5 bllion pounds. while the conversion is a bit outdated, you will see below that it doesn't make a difference.)
Ok, now for the US.
US Population: 307,865,195
US Deaths in Afghanistan: 912
US Troops in Afghanistan: 68,000
Total US $ Spent: $171.7 billion
Ok, so 0.0003% of the United States population has died in Afghanistan, while 0.022% of our population is serving there. We have spent about $556 per citizen on the effort.
First off, let me say that I was called ignorant as Hag was responding to my initial comment that I think we are a better ally to the UK than they are to us. He responded by saying they have lost more soldiers per capita than the US. Well, his statement does have a small amount of truth to it (refer to the above to see the absolute miniscule difference between the two countries; the difference is so insignificant that it could change in a single day). However, troops dead isnt' really the best way to judge a country's war effort. That is best determined by the number of troops they commit and money spent. As I plainly show above, we have made a significantly larger per capita commitment in Afghanistan than the UK. The fact that a greater percentage of their troops have died in afghanistan does nothing to suggest they have a higher level of support for the war. Also, as shown above, the US has spent more than 5 times, per capita, the amount of money that the UK has spent on the effort.
What's my point in all of this? I don't like being called ignorant when I have not said anything ignorant. When I made my initial comment, I was thinking about the number of troops being committed (per capita), since that is perhaps the best measure of our countries' willingness to fight terrorism in Afghanistan.
Interestingly enough, he made the following comment:
"When you start adding some "facts" to your comments then we can talk."
...in a blog where he is claiming that Brits have a life expectancy that exceeds that of the US by 11 months due to their nationalized healthcare; yet, he provides absolutely no evidence to support that premise, even though he was asked multiple times for it.
My blog, facts and sources. His blog, baseless statements.
REALLY! I want to know where my deep ignorance is. Or, is that just another baseless statement from you?
Eat crow, son. By the way, that's an American crow. Enjoy!
Filed under: Personal
close71 Comments
![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
(4 votes) kellogg plant in cary begins layoffs
(2 votes) no-bid dhhs contracts questioned
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
hahahahahahahah, anul retentive in the bad way but i still luv ya and not the swap'n spit in the shower kinda of way. you are however right about us and the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/user/bunzombie#p/f/469/_HfsKO22Ycc
http://www.youtube.com/user/bunzombie#p/f/528/bJ4jx7N-8wY,
GOLO member since October 27, 2009
November 7, 2009 12:06 p.m.
GOLO member since May 11, 2009
November 5, 2009 6:30 p.m.
GOLO member since May 19, 2009
November 5, 2009 3:22 p.m.
Maybe they just suck at fighting.
GOLO member since September 19, 2008
November 5, 2009 3:14 p.m.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
November 5, 2009 2:52 p.m.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
November 5, 2009 2:48 p.m.
nor did i ever claim to.
nor did i ever state that i think nationalized health care would be a bad thing in the us. initially, i supported it 100%. however, as things have changed and i have put more thought into it, i have no opinion on the us proposal until the proposal is finalized. if the proposal ends up reducing the cost of healthcare for me, or the average family, i will support it. if it drives insurance companies completely out of business, that is going to diminish my support. if it is a viable alternative to existing healthcare, cool.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
November 5, 2009 2:44 p.m.
(c;
GOLO member since November 21, 2007
November 5, 2009 2:41 p.m.
again, you have no data to support your premise that the uk's life expectancy has anything to do with their national healthcare. it's funny how you state that i don't have data to contradict your premise, when you don't even have data to support your premise.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
November 5, 2009 2:40 p.m.
furthermore, i backed up everything i was saying about 4th amendment rights, as they pertain to a homeowner in their home and criminal acts, with supreme court cases. again, you have failed to show where the supreme court has allowed authorities to enter a home to investigate a potential crime without a warrant (except in certain cases, such as an emergency). again, your concept of forcing homeowners to open their home to searches is of a criminal nature, because failure to comply with your law would result in criminal charges.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
November 5, 2009 2:36 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.