More gun deaths in DC than in Iraq

[JohnKSa]

There is NO need to speculate!

A few minutes with a search engine will turn up the homicide rate in DC and the U.S troop deaths due to hostile action in Iraq. Then with a population for DC and a number of deployed U.S. troops for Iraq, you can do the math.

I have and the U.S. troop deaths due to hostile action per 100,000 deployed per year are about 10x higher than the homicides per 100,000 persons per year in DC.

For the record, the number of homicides per 100,000 persons per year in DC is much closer to 40 than 80, and the corresponding number for U.S. troops in Iraq is about 450.

SOME thing one has to wonder and speculate about. Other things can be figured out easily.

As far as I can tell, the initial blurb on this thread is a quick and dirty rework of a similar blurb that circulated during the first Gulf War in which U.S. troop deaths were much lower.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Of course if they gave us the real death count in Iraq that got leaked we would that would be alot difference. You see any soldiers who die on the way to Germany or other bases don't get added to the Iraq death totals amongst many otherways to avoid adding figures, that are said to be closer in the 9000 dead, 17000 wounded range. One day in the distance future we might get the real numbers like what happened in Vietnam.

Standard small arms fire against US targets in Iraq is usually a bad idea because it leads to the targetting of mortars or airpower and the annhilation of a number of city blocks and everyone in the area. Against confirmed targets and you can hold out the US can put alot of firepower on that target, which is why ieds and so on make such good weapons against a conventional army. Its your guerilla warfare.

 

[JohnKSa]

Limefellow,

Your post seems like it would fit better under the "Legal & Political" section of TFL.

The last paragraph in particular, besides having virtually nothing to do with the topic at hand, is rather fanciful. You would probably find people more sympathetic to your point of view if you didn't post absolute and utter bovine droppings like: "leads to...the annhilation of a number of city blocks and everyone in the area". An infinitesimal amount of common sense would make it painfully obvious that if U.S. troops were willing and able to annihilate several city blocks at a time and exterminate everyone in the area, we would have been out of Iraq within a few weeks of when we rolled in.

Besides, as I pointed out, even with the officially released numbers the U.S. troop death rate in Iraq is already higher than the homicide rate in DC. The blurb in the initial post of this thread is badly in error.

 

[Warbow]

You see any soldiers who die on the way to Germany or other bases don't get added to the Iraq death totals amongst many otherways to avoid adding figures, that are said to be closer in the 9000 dead, 17000 wounded range.

Source, please.

 

[Capt. Charlie]

JohnKSa

The blurb in the initial post of this thread is badly in error.

That blurb was mine, and it probably is. As I said, my cousin e-mailed me that, and I'm sure that he got it from somebody who got it from sombody who got it...... Actually, the reason I posted it involved a little humor about "pulling out of DC".

 

[JohnKSa]

CaptCharlie,

I tried to be very careful not to say that the initial poster was in error, but to say instead that the blurb in the initial post was in error. Just to clarify, I am under no illusions that the error was yours nor was I attempting to impugn you in any way. I apologize for not being more clear.

 

[Capt. Charlie]

No apologies necessary John. It just seemed that as the thread continued, the stats were being taken a little too seriously and the humor went by the wayside.

 

[smince]

I read an article in the Sunday paper that stated that 65% of the casualties were from explosives/IED's; 23% from small-arms fire; 12% from accidents/sickness.

 

[Majic]

Walk the streets of DC sometime. Spend some time in the parks. Drive around the city. I've done it many, many times over the years as I have family and friends living there and we are still alive. You can make stats mean anything you want them to. Just omit data that don't point to your desired results.

 

[butch50]

The problem with bogus stats is that it gives aid to the enemy when they can de-struct your stats. You lose credibility anytime you use crap for an argument point, and that crap is shown for what it is.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

I saw a National Guard general actually saying that the mortality stats in Iraq aren't much different from what they see at home (due to traffic accidents etc). It is a fact (and one that I am glad for) that as wars go, we haven't had big casualties in Iraq - off the top of my head, I beleive that a lot more American soldiers were killed on D-Day than in 2 years of fighting in Iraq.

One thing I have read though, is that the percentage of soldiers injured who are dying is much lower in this war than in any other, due to big improvements in field medical facilities and evacuation infrastructure (many more of the casulties wind up in the wounded column instead of killed). So the number wounded in Iraq is still relatively high.

 

[culcune]

Re: withdraw from DC

If we look into every nook and cranny, we just might find some WMDs....in DC that is!

 

[Handy]

It may be more dangerous in DC, but you can get a better meal.

 

[chemist308]

taxation without representation

 

[Andrew LB]

Source, please.

I think he smoked it.