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 2,867 deaths. That gives the firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per100,000 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.
2007-08-15 03:51:37 · 18 answers · asked by jackie 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Luckythirteen, As a military family we thought is was pretty funny. As a legal citizen of the U.S., I think it is tragic that we send our best to fight for democracy while our national guard, border guard, police should be allowed to uphold the constitution and law in our own country.
2007-08-15 04:25:31 · update #1
That was brilliant! To me it says, if we can't protect the homeland, what makes us think we can do it in Iraq?
2007-08-15 03:55:57 · answer #1 · answered by bonstermonster20 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I live right across the bridge and I darned seldom go over there anymore.
Remember however that people who shoot each other usually have some kind of quarrel. A lot of the crime in Washington is what is called drug-related. Those crimes are never about drugs, always about money.
2007-08-15 11:05:47 · answer #2 · answered by Joe D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you got it wrong because 2,867 deaths per 160,000 represents 1,792 deaths per 100,000 and not 60. There is no how Iraq can be safer than Washington DC at the ratio of 80.6 per 100,000.
Conclusion: Using your figures, One is about 2223% more likely to be shot and killed in Iraq than Washington DC.
2007-08-15 11:37:20 · answer #3 · answered by Onyear333 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Haha, funny. Well, I can tell you I am going to DC next week and I look forward to it. If I were going to Iraq, I would not look forward to it so much....
Also, your analysis only accounts for deaths of US soldiers, which is low, within the past several years the primary target has been civilians. If you factor that in, your 'safety index' of DC vs. Iraq gets a lot worse.
Also, most of Iraq is actually safe. Baghdad is the problem area. If you compare Baghdad and DC, you will find they are incomparable.
2007-08-15 10:55:56 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
True, but we are not dumping cash by the truckload into ghetto DC!
I don’t care about the soldiers, as harsh as that may sound, a soldier accepts the fact that they may be killed and gets paid accordingly. I care about my hard earned money being wasted!!!
2007-08-15 10:59:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
LOL!!! Great analysis!
And the death rate in Baltimore is even higher than that for DC! Thanks to a persistently liberal/Democratic government in the city for that wonderful statistic.
2007-08-15 10:59:16 · answer #6 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My husband is a soldier and I really don't appreciate your smart @ss humor. If you think it's so funny why don't you spend a year to eighteen months in Iraq with inadequate safety equipment & supplies in substandard living conditions and then see how much fun it is.
Civilians can choose whether or not to live in a dangerous city. Soldiers are forced to deploy.
2007-08-15 11:02:14 · answer #7 · answered by luckythirteen 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I know..and D.C. has one of the largest police depts in the country
2007-08-15 10:58:13 · answer #8 · answered by John 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nice post, of course your numbers are only for US troops, you should take into account civilians too. I'm sure that would up it to being worse than DC.
2007-08-15 10:59:12 · answer #9 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I got that on an email 2 weeks ago
2007-08-15 10:55:02 · answer #10 · answered by Bianca 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋