Posted on 05/16/2006 5:46:34 PM PDT by Retain Mike
Iraq Has a Lower Violent Death Rate Than Washington, Baltimore or Atlanta
May 16, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Interesting story today in the New York Sun:
"It's that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans. Renting a place in the Hamptons? Nah, been there, done that. How about a Parisian jaunt? Noooo. Too many riots. Well, how about visiting a country that's ancient, historic, beautiful and exotic - Iraq? Sure, there's a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics in the world, [Iraq is] safer than a number of other popular travel destinations. Believe it or not. I happened to catch Rep. Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-span last week and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-base journalists are when it comes to reporting on the war in Iraq.
"According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.
So Iraq, I mean, if you're just going to roll the dice and take your chances, Iraq's a much safer place to go than Washington or Jamaica or New Orleans pre-Katrina, or Venezuela!
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(New York Sun: Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Great! Probably most big Blue Cities are as dangerous or more so than Baghdad.
That is news, particularly because violent deaths in those places are lower now than in the late 1980's/early 1990's.
Fyi, files, and ping lists.
I have been sarcastically arguing this point for a long time.
Now there is the real evidence and I am surprised!
Liberals wake up in a sweat when they have a 'nightmare' like this. To them a black man has to be angry, dependent and the worst thing, not rooted to a purpose bigger than himself.
"Aw jeez, not this sh** again!"
He compares the violent-death statistic for the entire country to the statistic for a third-rate city. How many car bombings are happening in the 90% of places in Iraq that don't have any cars?
I have a feeling there is some statistical misinformation going on here... Does anyone know where I can get this data ( I assume its a cluster study). Im a bit sceptical with these numbers, but I have been wrong before.
Your more likely to catch disease, end up benighted, or just smell bad too if you're living in a blue state.
Some of our cities are indeed higher than 25/100K, but as far as states go, none are that high -- the very violent cities are countered by the relatively safe rest of the state. Only DC is higher (double). I'm sure Baghdad or Tikrit taken alone would score higher than any of our cities.
South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,00
Third rate cities? Better brush up on your geography.
I remember Ann Coulter saying she would not leave the hotel at night in DC - when there was a discussion of leaving an hotel in Iraq.
I agree with you and don't care for how it minimizes the sacrifices made by our troops.
For example, we have 140000-160000 troops on the ground and they have been sustaining in the neighborhood of 800 deaths per year, not to mention the casualties. That's orders of magnitudes higher than the cherry picked stats in the article.
Also, the Iraqis who stand up to be police and soldiers are getting wacked at a rate of about 800 per month! It's still a low intensity war people!
Using the rat logic that murderers choosing to murder people in Iraq means we haven't won the war...I guess it was never "mission accomplished" for George Washington then.
"Some of our cities are indeed higher than 25/100K, but as far as states go, none are that high -- the very violent cities are countered by the relatively safe rest of the state. Only DC is higher (double). I'm sure Baghdad or Tikrit taken alone would score higher than any of our cities."
OK but I was questioning more the validity of the Iraq figures, which are not listed on the site you gave me.
Well - you're wrong again
FBI-DOJ Uniform Crime Report
Google it up
Do some research before commenting you are dubious
I have posted info on DC & Chicago on FR for several years
The NRA-ILA or your US Senator's local staff will send out stats
Joe Lieberman has sent out full FBI-DOJ Uniform Crime Reports for years
New Orleans is another killer city as are Detroit, Miami, Gary, St. Louis, LA, Houston, ....
Teen black males in DC have a higher kill per/100,000 then during the Rwanda slaughters were
Compliments of the US Congress and the Beltway Media who bury the info
Quagmire bump.
Historically, the military was where you sent young men who needed some sorting out and instruction in discipline
Yah.. I did some research, and most of what I could find for Iraq violent death rates were based on retrospective cluster studies.
Houston now has an even higher crime rate since the New Orleans refugees moved in - and stayed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.