English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-13 00:24:45 · 6 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government Politics

that wasn't where i was going with the

question ghost

2007-10-13 00:33:44 · update #1

yes jimsock i did mean chance, thank you

btw...you forgot cleveland!

2007-10-13 00:37:27 · update #2

6 answers

I think you meant to say 'chance', not change.

In any case, based on statistics, you are correct.

Deaths by gun fire is higher in Philadelphia, Washington DC and Baltimore than in Iraq.

I'm waiting to see if there is still the same conclusion when you factor in IED's. Not a lot of those in American cities.

American kids seem to prefer the up-close and personal brand of killing as opposed to remote controlled frags.

I wonder if that means our youth leagues are not very good preparation for the new brand of war in the world and that's why we lose more troops to IED's than gun fire?

2007-10-13 00:35:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Here's a factual answer, and I dare you to pick it and prove you're not an ideologue.

According to FBI statistics,in 2006, 169 people were murdered in DC out of a population of 600,000. Baghdad has 6 million people, so 1700 would give it the equivalent number of murders. The Baghdad morgue processed that many bodies in September 2006 alone. At least 16000 were killed in 2005, and it's only gotten worse since then.

The chance of survival is approximately 12 times greater in Washington D.C. than in Baghdad. That statistic does not take into account the randomness of the violence in Iraq. In the US you can use rational strategies to improve your safety. For example, you can usually avoid gangs, move to a better neighborhood and stay off the street at night. Not so in Iraq where people are dragged from their homes in the middle of the night by "death squads" and blown up while shopping for groceries.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSMAC448648
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

2007-10-13 08:11:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

No. Inner City isn't really that bad as people try to make it out to be. Most of the people there own there own homes, they have nice cars, expensive clothes. Just there happen to be a lot of people on welfare, gangs and drug addicts, and barely anyone works, which is the communities fault for encouraging this behavior.

2007-10-13 07:51:23 · answer #3 · answered by ST 4 · 2 0

And when do YOU Head over to Iraq, tough guy? When do you "support the troops" by figthing alongside them?

Or are you just another "anal wart sufferer" like your God, Rush? Full of tough talk but when it comes time to "Walk the Walk" all I see is a scared boy at his computer, playing Paper-Patriot, when do you grow some guts and do your duty?

US Army veteran here- I did MY duty to this country, when do you do yours?

And THAT'S reality, check?

2007-10-13 08:03:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I have yet to see an IED explode or a mortar fall in any inner city neighborhood.

I also have yet to see some guy over here blow up scores of innocent people.

Over a million people have died in Iraq, there is ethnic cleansing going on over there, if a situation like Iraq happened over here, you would be crying and pleading with everyone you saw to help you get out of there.

2007-10-13 07:35:06 · answer #5 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3 3

My answer is no. Are you suggesting the deportation of our brown friends to Iraq? lol

2007-10-13 07:30:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers