Posted on 05/12/2005 1:08:17 PM PDT by Ryan Bailey
"Amazing Ratio"
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraqi theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death ratio of 60 per 100,000.
The firearm death ratio in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of ... WASHINGTON, DC!
What is your exit strategy for Washington D.C., Mr. Bush ?
In reality, Detroit, Philadelphia, Camden, Newark and a great many other cities could be equally so compared. I have notverified the cited statistics but they and this whole comparative analysis display very well the double standard of the left, not unlike that which they apply in environmentalism, dependence on foreign petroleums and affirmative action.
God Bless America:. "America Bless God"*
* seen on a polo shirt belonging to a friend of mine
False analogy. You're comparing a population subset in one instance, with an entire population in another. Try again.
"160,000 troops in the Iraqi theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death ratio of 60 per 100,000."
So less than 100 troops have died in Iraq in the last 22 months? That's not correct.
For Iraqi people less than 2% of deaths are insurgency related but 100% of deaths covered by the media are.
Personally, I am awaiting FDR's exit strategy from Germany and Japan?
Blzbba wrote:
'"160,000 troops in the Iraqi theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death ratio of 60 per 100,000."
So less than 100 troops have died in Iraq in the last 22 months? That's not correct.'
No, actually you are 'not correct'.
Re-read your first sentence and you'll see the term "firearm death ratio", 'firearm' being the operative word.
If you still don't understand, let me know and I'll be more than happy to explain further.
Have a blessed day.
""firearm death ratio", 'firearm' being the operative word. "
Who cares? They're still dead. And it's FAR more than 100 troops.
Blzbba wrote:
'""firearm death ratio", 'firearm' being the operative word. "
Who cares? They're still dead. And it's FAR more than 100 troops'
What he fails to recognize would be that the statistic with which this thread is concerned is the firearm death ratio, specifically, as opposed to the death ratio.
In this war the media has developed several ways to reflect poorly on the military and this administration by utilising fallacious and deceptive statistics on friendly casualties. Just take this sentence from CNN's Decoration Day Coverage:
(Since then over 500 US Troops have died in Combat in Iraq. Not all of these deaths have occured in combat.)
Come again. Not all combat deaths occur in combat ?
This is one such method of bad science used by a less than objecvtive media with an agenda to push.
Please don't buy into it.
Blzbba's response 'who cares' is indicative of the ignorance with which the citizenry of this great nation is currently infected. For this reason, many have unfortunately bought in to the false casualty numbers from the GWOT, which include vehicle wrecks, accidental discharges, friendly fire, heart disease, heat related illness, Kreutz-Feld-Jakob Disease and cancer.
"Firearms deaths" also would exclude such things as improvised explosive devices, poisonings, suicide bombings, bludgeoning, land mines and the good old fashioned cutting off of the head ( which we must presume is merciful and politically correct compared to putting underwear on someone's head; according to the biased reporting of this media ) which are classifiable as KIA, but not from firearms.
We must, in resepecting the sacrifices of all our servicemen and servicewomen, as conscientious citizens demand objectivity from our media and at the very least we must demand the differentiation between the personnel killed in action and those who die from these non combat ilnesses and accidents.
The media is currently playing fast and loose with the truth and walking all over the Flag and the good people of this country, not to mention our military and veterans, by using these lies to advance their Communist agendae and 'blame America first' mentality.
But in the words of Blzbba: "who cares"
"But in the words of Blzbba: "who cares"
The dead don't care. Once our military leaves Iraq and it descends into another Islamic hellhole, none of these stats will matter. Right now, none of them matter to the victims of the WOT. I'd personally rather see our military deployed on our northern and southern borders rather than wasting their lives for an ungrateful Iraqi populace.
This thread has very well displayed that there are great differences between the realities of the GWOT in Iraq and the deceptive reports of this media.
Firearms deaths are a very important statistic at home and abroad and I hope all of our readers will become more attentive to such important details.
"This thread has very well displayed that there are great differences between the realities of the GWOT in Iraq and the deceptive reports of this media. "
No doubt. The media doesn't dare report any real casualty numbers concerning injured American troops or innocent Iraqi civilians.
This government sincerely regrets the unintentional demise of any "innocent Iraqi civilians" which result from our liberation of and subsequent security operations in Iraq. These represent a regretable side consequence to our worthy goals, and I believe outstanding achievements within that theatre of the current war which we were brought into on 11 September 2001.
Opn. Iraqi Freedom and Opn. Enduring Freedom have in general been the most successful examples in Military History of limiting civilian attrition and collateral damage. Off the top of my head I can think of several of the twenty-six military operations under the Clinton Administration which had much higher aggregate collateral damage, due to indiscriminate carpet bombing which Mr. Clinton demonstrated against in Viet-Nam, but felt justified ordering in Eastern Europe. I am referring of course to the largest and most expensive bombing campaign in the history of this nation, the 72 day bombardment of Kosovo.
It is an important issue to this discussion that the unknowing, or more likely untruthful, do always and everywhere decry the loss of civilian life in certain circumstances but never apply this standard to their own favored and enlightened leaders. This is regretable, and I wish this leftist media would admit the existence of these important differences between the policies of the past two administrations on civilian attrition in military operations.
Please try to support your points without referring to Clinton if possible. Everyone here is a Republican and it's doubtful anyone voted or supported Clintax. We know who we aren't. Let's discuss who we are and should be, rather than this lockstep, knee-jerk reaction of "at least we're not Clinton". The Dems provide no solution and generally suck, so there's no reason to hammer home a point that we're already aware of, unless you can't come up with anything better to support your points.
You can also make a point without posting to 'All', unless you feel you need the support of others.
I honestly don't know how you can make any assessment of the loss of life in Iraq since there's a virtual media blackout on reporting casualties over there. Other than highlighting the relatively few American troop deaths, I see no Iraqi casualty figures coming from any media in this country, do you?
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.