OF COURSE NOT!!
FIRST, you have to turn the cities over to terrorist, then you cut and run!!!
Posted on 01/01/2007 6:16:22 PM PST by Nexus
ROTFLMAO...nice.
I forgot the /s. I thought he was Jimmy Crack.
That's it? The way the media shows it, you'd think it was in the millions.
Are you saying that fewer people died violently, in all of Iraq, than in a smaller battle of the American Civil War?
More to the point: how many of the 16,000 "violent" deaths were of insurgents?
Good question.
1) How many are, as was said, "garden variety" murders? To claim there are no petty-criminal-, jealous-husband-, or angry-neighbour-murders in Iraq is laughable. Not all murders are of political nature.
2)How many terrorists/insurgents/militiamen are included in this numbers. (That may include those killed by Coalition/Iraqi Forces and those killed by other militias).
"total population in Millions/ reported deaths/10 =deaths per 100,000
When you do the calculation you will see your error."
I don't know what you are calculating, but it sure doesn't work out to deaths per 100,000.
The formula is (deaths/population) * 100000.
ok...so get technical....
the Iraq rate of 56 is 33% higher than Baltimore, 43% higher than Detroit, and 60% higher than our capitol city of Washington, D.C.....
so its worse there than in our listed cities.....but....not that much.....
also, i guess we need to point out that most of the deaths probably did occurr in Baghdad.....which has a population of about 6 million.....making the violent death rate there maybe 3 or 4 times as much as in our listed US cities.....
A study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that, aside from the terrific press, continuing this policy of containment would not have come cheap and the alleged death toll of Iraqi infants no doubt up around six million. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are alive today who would have been shoveled into unmarked graves had Ba'athist rule continued. Meanwhile, the dictator would have continued gaming the international system through the Oil-for-Food program, subverting Jordan, and supporting terrorism as far afield as the Philippines.
In Donald Rumsfeld's words, weakness is a provocation.
Diplomats use "stability" as a fancy term to dignify inertia and complacency as geopolitical sophistication, but the lesson of 9/11 is that "stability" is profoundly unstable. The unreal realpolitik of the previous 40 years had given the region a stability unique in the non-democratic world, and in return they exported their toxins, both as manpower (on 9/11) and as ideology. Instability was as good a strategic objective as any. As Sam Goldwyn used to tell his screenwriters, I'm sick of the old cliches, bring me some new cliches. When the old cliches are Ba'athism, Islamism and Arafatism, the new ones can hardly be worse, and one or two of them might even buck the region's dismal history. The biggest buck for the bang was obvious: prick the Middle East bubble at its most puffed up point - Saddam's Iraq. Mark Steyn
Too bad this isn't widely circulated.
Do you think if we sent it to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN they'd report it?
Still, these are not good numbers. In any kind of guerrilla war, you get some number of dead civilians, but most of the dead are government officials, soldiers, cops and guerrillas. In Iraq, the proportions are reversed. You have Sunni and Shiite terrorists grabbing random civilians off the street and shooting them or blowing them up because they're of the wrong religious denomination. Not collaborators. Just people who are of a different religious denomination. This is like bunch of small-scale 9/11's day in, day out, every single day of the year. The perpetrators are a bunch of nutjobs who need to be put down like the rabid dogs they are.
28,807,000 / 100,000 = 288.07
36,500 / 288.07 = 126.7053
that's about 127 deaths per 100,000 annually
so maybe it's
HUGH and SERIES
Except 36,500 is the wrong number.
This is getting comical
Bravo!!
cars are a WMD?
The issue, I guess, is that this "civil war" isn't all it's cracked up to be, this despite the best efforts of some of the nastiest terrorists in the world. It's still horrible, of course, but it doesn't look very much like a quagmire unless you stick that label on Rio de Janeiro - that'd be 50 per 100,000 at the most conservative estimate.
U.S. out of Rio! Oh, wait...
LOL!
Another thing that might figure big is the numbers for the US flying around are for the 'murder' rate.
What about other violent deaths in US cities: manslaugher, self-defense, criminals getting shot by cops, suicide?
These would raise the US rate quite a bit.
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.