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.
My brother is stationed near D.C. also, but now lives in Maryland. I think he tries to steer clear of the worst parts.
Bump.
Are things that much better in Chicago?
Let's compare apples with apples. That's 5 times higher than the violent death rate of the U.S. as a whole.
"According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000"
The whole article stems around this crucial bit of information. Without knowing how this number was derived makes the rest of the article difficult to evaluate.
If EVERY 'violent crime' were reported NATIONWIDE EVERYDAY in detail by every MSM or Cable channel on an hourly basis, for DETROIT or South Central or Washington DC, people in this nation would BE SHOCKED and they would wander aloud when did this happen and how could it have happened in our nation?
......then they would..........BLAME BUSH!
Actually, it's a good comparison, since we're talking about percentages.
You're safer, on average, in Iraq than you would be somewhere in Washington DC. Or New Orleans.
It's a fair point.
You're safer, on average, in almost anywhere in the U.S. than you would be in D.C. or New Orleans. And you are, on average, far safer anywhere in the U.S. than you are anywhere in Iraq. That's a fair point, too.
How can I find the violent death rate for Vietnam?
How can I find the violent death rate for Vietnam?
I ask for this only because family members were concerned when I took a trip there yet they went to Jamaica. I know it has to be much lower
Certainly -- but the point I believe the article is making is, Iraq is clearly *not* a disaster, so dangerous it's without peer.
"You're safer, on average, in Iraq than you would be somewhere in Washington DC. Or New Orleans."
Perhaps our politicians ought to move to Iraq since it is supposedly safer than DC.
If there were votes to be bought or pandered to, they'd all be there tomorrow . . .
I do think the lack of perspective is interesting, tho -- a few Americans are killed daily in Iraq, a country of what, 25 million? Yet how many Americans are killed every day in Houston? New York City? DC?
And don't get me wrong -- every human death is a tragedy, I understand that. But perspective is important, I'm just saying.
"a few Americans are killed daily in Iraq, a country of what, 25 million?"
These aren't average everyday Americans you are talking about, these are weapon carrying, fully trained military men who are being killed in Iraq. They are tougher and harder to kill than the typical American. And, of course, the ordinary Iraqi is far more likely to be killed than a US soldier, so if you take total homicides in any major city in Iraq since the war began and compared it to any US city I believe the homicide rate per 100,000 people would be much higher in an Iraqi city, esp. Baghdad.
Granted, but that doesn't change the core point here -- for all those decrying how Iraq is a disaster, the real numbers are too low to support that.
The odds of an individual soldier being wounded are very low, in fact so low that an individual is more at risk walking thru many American cities at night than they would be if they were deployed in Iraq.
This kind of 'contextual' information has a way of really putting things in perspective . . . which is why the 'old media' as a rule avoids including perspective in their news reports. Y'know, things like comparing the Katrina response to other, previous responses.
If they carefully avoid ever comparing anything to others of it's kind, they can mislead.
"The odds of an individual soldier being wounded are very low, in fact so low that an individual is more at risk walking thru many American cities at night than they would be if they were deployed in Iraq"
How many soldiers have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began?
I was watching 'Baghdad ER' on HBO last night, and they flashed a number around 18,000. 90% of which lived. Out of somewhere around 500,000 total soldiers who have been cycled in and out, so about 3.5% or so injured. That's not a military disaster, in anybody's book.
And actually, we're comparing deaths here, I mis-spoke when I said 'wounded'. Altho I dare say the risk of being injured in NYC or elsewhere is likely higher than 3.5%, cuz that Iraq number includes car wrecks and other accidents. But I don't think we have those numbers for comparison.
With the 'killed by violence', the number is what, 2400 or so (1800 or so to "enemy action). Over 3+ years. 2400, including accidents. Out of 500,000. About .5%, half of one percent.
Clearly, not a military disaster. In fact, as military actions go, compared to past such examples, this is a giant, rousing success. Heck, at Iwo Jima, we took over 3000 casualties in the first 24 hours -- and that was a 'success'.
No doubt in terms of wars this is a very light casulty amount but I seriously doubt its more dangerous in NYC than it is in Baghdad. I just don't buy it.
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.