The president is considering sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq to secure Baghdad, what about Washington could we use 20,000 more cops to quell the violence there?
2006-12-24 10:38:53 · 17 answers · asked by Sicko 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Read the question Mayham it says 20,000 more cops>
2006-12-24 10:47:55 · update #1
A question of this nature is meant to encourage discussion, not stupid remarks**
2006-12-24 10:50:47 · update #2
In a report to congress by the Joint Military Coalition on crime in Iraq the embarrassing fact (censored by the anti gun Washington post) that not counting military and insurgent actions, the street crime rate in Baghdad (where everybody and their dog has an AK-47, grenades, and an RPG in their closet) is lower than that of Washington DC, with it's draconian anti gun laws.
Where have you been getting your information? It is a very bad, very anti gun, anti government biased source. Try reading Neil Knox, or American Rifleman, or Shotgun News... get the REAL story.
2006-12-24 10:51:32 · answer #1 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Recent statistics say that DC is far more dangerous than Iraq deaths there being at around 60 per 100,000 while DC is quite a bit over 80 per 100,000 these statistics are for gun related deaths which I find ironic considering that since DC stands for District of Columbia it is NOT a part of the US proper and as a result has the strictest gun control of anywhere " in " our country !
And since when has Bush worried about limitations that the constitution places on his powers with regards to armed forces use ( the patriot act gives him the power to use them here don't believe me take a trip to your local airport sometime and and look in your history books at how often the us army was used by politicians to do their buddies like Henry Ford a favor and shoot striking workers ! The 20,00 more troops will NOT be used in Iraq they WILL be used in Iran anyone want to place a bet name your odds I can use the money ask Rand I gave a better solution than they did for the hostage crisis live on they radio during Carters tenure
2006-12-24 11:26:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you consider that there is a war being waged in Iraq, and Washington Dc is our nations capital, then the violence is relative to the two locations. Statistics show that the murder rate is higher in DC than in Baghdad!!
2006-12-24 11:41:33 · answer #3 · answered by The Real Bill Clinton 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Washington, D. C. is more dangerous than Baghdad, Iraq!
WHY?!
Well...it's because of this simple fact; RAW STUPIDITY is more dangerous to the overall human condition than any illness or incidence of violence!
2006-12-24 12:10:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure where you all are getting your facts. The murder rate in DC has declined sharply over the last few years, as well as almost all other kinds of violent crime, and we certainly don't have car bombs, hostage-taking, torture and rampant violence. Get your facts straight before you start bashing the Nation's Capital! The statistics some posters are quoting are not current and are probably all coming from the same 2003 blog on Fox News!
2006-12-24 11:45:26 · answer #5 · answered by dcgirl 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believe that use of the military inside the confines of the United States is expressly forbidden by law. Therefore, even if Washington was more dangerous than Bagdad, the Pres couldn't use military assets to quell the violence. Another individual who takes a premise that compares an apple to an orange!
2006-12-24 10:45:18 · answer #6 · answered by mayham1983 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I stay in DC and violent crime isn't uncommon. that's not as undesirable as different cities. I stay interior the middle of SE, the place it assume to be the worst. in reality, i does no longer walk up in NW at nighttime. The media do no longer coach approximately those crimes in NW because of the fact that's the place the properties fee $a million,000,000. besides, i like it right here, been right here all my existence, does no longer flow no the place else. be careful in case you % to flow to however; we are able to perceive a tourist! and additionally, you could no longer blame DC gun on what befell in commonwealth Virginia at VTech. unhappy yet DC and VA have different regulations.
2016-12-11 15:31:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Support or troops!!!!! our cops are not getting hit by snipers or loosing body parts due to rode side bombs! regardless if you are for the war or against it!! send all the help they need, request, want! There is strength in numbers!
Note: look up on the web the total number of residents of DC then you would not ask such a stupid question.
2006-12-24 10:46:50 · answer #8 · answered by 2u-sister 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I honestly do not know. DC is another example of how liberalism destroys a community.
Baghdad has a lot of bombings. DC has a lot of murders.
If I had to guess, I would say Baghdad due to the bombings.
2006-12-24 10:47:01 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The danger in Washington, D.C., is on Capitol Hill, not in the streets. Sorry. This band of criminals running our country is more dangerous to world peace than anything else. Most of the world agrees with this assessment, by the way. Bush is hated EVERYWHERE.
52 million Americans voted for Bush in 2004. How can 52 million people be so dumb?
2006-12-24 10:45:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋