Unclassified U.S. involvement in Iraq
INTERESTING STATISTIC...
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in
Iraq , here's a sobering statistic:
There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq .
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington
2007-02-27 23:07:54 · 11 answers · asked by aiminhigh24u2 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
like nada:)
2007-02-27 23:09:55 · answer #1 · answered by VeronicaB 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Show your sources for your numbers or this "question" is just more propaganda.
Your numbers are completely incorrect.
In 2006, the US had between 126,900 and 144,000 troops in Iraq. In that same year there were 821 deaths, making the death rate for soldiers in Iraq at LEAST 570 per 100,000.
Comparing US Forces numbers with the number of civilian deaths in Washington DC is flawed as well. To adequately compare numbers between Iraq and Washington, you would need to provide the numbers of POLICE casualties in Washington, not the civilian numbers, unless you want to compare how many civillians were killed in Iraq (at least 68,000+)with how many in Washington.
In this case, I can only find 6 Police Officers killed in the line of duty in Washington DC in 2006. While tragic to be sure, 6 officers does not compare to over 800 soldiers in Iraq.
So youre numbers are flawed and youre question skewed. You really should stop listening to Rush Limbaughg. He tried this ame argument with Philadelphia, which has a murder rate of almost 29 per 100,000. We already knew Rush was allergic to facts, apparently he is allergic to mathmatics as well.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020017
2007-02-28 07:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your statistics seem a bit off. Can you provide the source or the raw data for the D.C. rates?
Because based on an equal comparison, with a population of about 580,000, then D.C. would have had to have had 5,500 firearm deaths last year to have a 80 per 100K monthly rate.
I think you are comparing a monthly troop rate with an annual D.C. rate.
The true comparison would be annual rate:
720 per 100K troops in Iraq *1.6 = 1152 per year
80 per 100K people in D.C. * 5.8 = 464 per year
This sounds more correct. I'm a conservative and fully support President Bush and the War on Terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but I will not accept bogus statistics.
For you idiots on this board who post propagandist crap, liberal or conservative, just stop the BS. Those who post propaganda and spew malicious and spiteful bile are nothing but tools.
2007-02-28 07:51:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess you just "forgot" to include the figures on Iraqi civilians in with the troops in total firearm deaths for Iraq. But then again that would mess up your conclusions wouldn't it....
2007-02-28 08:14:00 · answer #4 · answered by ash 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very funny. But there is much more to this. Millions have fled Iraq to surronding nations out of fear. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died. We destabilized a nation that was a hated foe of Iran. A shii'ite leadership is now in place with friendly ties to Iran. A war could spread to involve other country's in the region. Invading Iraq is the worst decision by America in greater than 100 years.
2007-02-28 07:23:45 · answer #5 · answered by Firesidechat 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Typical American, only counting American deaths. What about the Civilian deaths and the total disruption of the country.
2007-02-28 08:41:18 · answer #6 · answered by Phil J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alternative conclusion: GI's in Iraq are armed, hence not easy victims. Perhaps we just need to arm all law-abiding adult citizens of Washington.
2007-02-28 07:43:02 · answer #7 · answered by workinstiff 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Statements like this make a JOKE of the 3000+ troops who have died and the 10s of thousands who have been injured.
Shame on you.
2007-02-28 07:23:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Horrible analogy. How many troops died in Washington D.C. again?
2007-02-28 07:59:23 · answer #9 · answered by ck4829 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
LOL
Washington DC is just proof you take away law abiding citizens right to bear arms only criminals will have them.
2007-02-28 07:11:22 · answer #10 · answered by . 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So, washington is one of those one night stand girls eh? So i should pull out before i enter?
2007-02-28 07:13:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋