US death rate in Iraq comparison!
This is incredible to think about:
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. (That is making all IEDs etc into the firearm category, not right but read on)
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.
(Democrat???) conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington
Wulfmann
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. (That is making all IEDs etc into the firearm category, not right but read on)
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.
(Democrat???) conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington
Wulfmann
0
-
GREAT idea !!!
Doug0 -
Statemaster.com cites a firearm death rate in D.C. of 31.2 per 100,000 per year.
It is just ever so slightly wrong to compare this 31.2 per 100,000 per year to 60 per 100,000 per month. Nice try, though.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-0000 -
If we weren't in Iraq, then no US citizen would be getting killed there. My logic makes more sense than yours.
Why not just say that if the gestapo went house to house in DC and confiscated firearms, then gun related deaths would decrease? Said with sarcasm.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Statemaster.com cites a firearm death rate in D.C. of 31.2 per 100,000 per year.
It is just ever so slightly wrong to compare this 31.2 per 100,000 per year to 60 per 100,000 per month. Nice try, though.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
lol.
you and your facts!0 -
Quote, Osama Bin Laden: "When the US leaves Iraq we shall follow them"
So the death rate in DC is only half what it is in a war zone and that is one city and not even the worst in the USA. That means two US cities combined equal or surrpass the death rate of military personal in a war zone.
Yeh, you guys win! LOL
Wulfmann0 -
Still don't see how comparing apples to safety pins proves anything.
Are you saying that the number of casualties in Iraq are unimportant because more people are being killed in DC?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
So the death rate in DC is only half what it is in a war zone and that is one city and not even the worst in the USA. That means two US cities combined equal or surrpass the death rate of military personal in a war zone.
Actually the math suggests that it is 1/24th. (1/2 as many per- capita per year vs. per month in Iraq)
Also if you add two cities death rate together you actually have to average it. For example D.C. at 31.2 plus Murdertown at 31.4 equals a combined rate of 31.3 per 100,000 per year.
The point is not about winning, it about dispelling the notion that there is any area of the U.S. that comes close to the conditions our boys are walking through every day in Iraq.0 -
I would likely be banned for assessing that statement accurately
There are those that simply want things to be the way they demand and reality or facts will not deter them.
So, we do as you say and leave Iraq, we pull out, every single American.
That will end it, which will bring peace?????
The whole problem is the US presence in Iraq. When we leave they will all sing Kum-by-yah.
Let me make another point. I was not in favor of going into Iraq but for different reasons than some pansies.
As far as I am concerned those people as a whole are unredeemable. They are not and were not worth a single American as they have proven countless times since (There are exceptions yes but as a whole, scum bags) Saddam was what they deserved. (Except the Kurds, good folks, like them)
But, to think (no matter what anyone thought before the war began) that pulling out now will only create a scenario far worse denotes a small mind incapable of discerning logic.
The results of failure in Iraq will empower the militants to continue and expand their desire for Islamic domination that started over 1300 years ago and has never stopped, ever.
Remember, Christopher Columbus discovered the new world while searching for a route to avoid Islamic terrorist in 1492..
Where do you prefer we fight this war?
In the Middle East or on American soil?
Wulfmann0 -
wulfmann:
You and I are basically on the same page regarding continuing our work in Iraq. I simply take issue with downplaying the risk our guys are taking every time they set foot outside.0 -
Don,
I was replying to the post above yours by woodshermit, sorry if it seemed I was replying to you on my reply.
There are many ways to spin the numbers.
It is harder to spin Nancy in Damascus talking to one of the leading sponsors of terrorism. She is giving aide and comfort to the enemy.
God bless her, you think the Republicans can screw up bad, I will show you how to really mess thinsg up; heart!
Wulfmann0 -
Some might argue that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq, but, at this point, attempting to keep two factions of Iraqis from killing each other. I would prefer that we never diverted our troops from finding and destroying Bin Laden.
As for Nancy in Damascus talking to one of the leading sponsors of terrorism, is that any worse than our own President's close ties to the Saudis?
I believe we remain vulnerable to an attack on American soil and our presence in Iraq is irrelevant to preventing or abetting that attack.0 -
The per capita murder rate in D.C. takes in ALL the people in D.C., not just one small segment as the Iraq death rate which was posted, which includes only U.S. military personnel. I wonder what the per capita death rate is in Iraq if you factor in ALL the War related deaths to include Iraqi civilians, police, military, enemy insurgents etc.? I think it's beyond naive to think Iraq is safer than D.C. 0 -
If you wish an acurate Iraq number, do not use 160,000 because the majority do work outside the wire. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments