Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Great numbers. Take that Pelosi and liberals. A very good article.
Thanks for the link.
Pleasure. Always enjoy your page. Every day.
You do realize that the number of murders in Iraq are higher than the numbers you just published for the US. Plus, Iraq only has about 7% of the population of the US.
So, if we're comparing apples to apples, the murder rate in Iraq is 20 times higher than the US. If you really think that Iraq is safer for US troops than the US is, I suggest you get on the next flight to Baghdad for Thanksgiving.
You do realize one country is at war and another isn't don't you?
Fact is we are NOT fighting an active war here and the numbers are THAT high.
14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq have LESS crime than in our lowest crime rate in any city.
You people cannot handle the FACTS can you? Did you think there would be NO death in a war?
My POINT, which you may be too slow to have gotten is that WE have a huge death rate while NOT BEING AT WAR.
So, maybe you should "cut and run".
You know, I agree with what you're TRYING to say, but you undermine your whole point by saying, frankly, REALLY STUPID THINGS, which makes it really easy for those of the liberal persuasion to make you AND your argument look foolish. And you've got to be pretty dumb to be made to look foolish by a liberal.
The numbers you cite are meaningless without dividing each by the population. And you know that if you do that, things are FAR worse in Iraq than in the US. No comparison. That doesn't mean Iraq is a basket case and that we should pull out.
Again, you are missing the POINT... the numbers represent a country NOT AT WAR and YOU are trying to compare the numbers of a country ACTIVELY in a war... who is stupid?????
God you people are slow on the uptake.
No, I'm not missing the point, but YOU are trying to compare a county of 300,000,000 to a country of 27,000,000. Your comparison is absolutely meaningless and you know it, or you should. It's disingenuous at best. In that three years we've had about 50,000 murders per 300 million people. That's about 1 in 6200. By contast, Iraq has about 27 million people. How many people have been murdered over the same period? Let's be generous to you and assume it's only 50,000 (it's way more). That's 1 in 540. 6200/540 = 11.5.
So -- we're not at war in the US, and as any rational person would expect, our murder rate is more than an order of magnitude lower than the murder rate in Iraq. In other words, on a per capita basis, you are more than 10 times more likely to get murdered in Iraq than in the US. Iraq sounds like a country at war, no? The US sounds like a country (albeit a much bigger one) at peace.
Like I said, I agree with your ultimate point, but you're doing a lousy job making it.
craig.... you will never get the point... Name me a state in OUR country that lives relatively violence free... you cannot.
Of course their numbers are higher, they are in the midst of a battle for democracy..... what is OUR excuse here in the USA... Try answering the question, instead of trying to change the issue.
Well said spree - the point is that we can't compare apples to apples. A country not at war should never be less safe state by state than a country actively involved in a war. No matter how you calculate the numbers.
Thanks and they know what the point is... but whenever faced with facts they do not like, they often try to change the "point" because they are incapable of actually debating the issue.
I see this when I visit other blogs to and watch the comments. If they cannot debate the point, they pretend to not "get" the point.
It is funny actually and very transparent.
Spree... visting mom & dad and what do I see on there screen... my blog? Noooo... yours 
I apparently got them hooked. By the way, some more stats for you over at my place (did some investigating on the CDC website over the weekend). Gotta go back to work... cya
LOL, special wave to Keiths mom and dad!!!!!!!!
Wow! Looks like I'm a bit late to the debate, but the murder rate in Iraq will not go down when we leave, so that is not actually a variable that has any meaning.
The key here is that the pull out proponents are not pushing for us to leave Iraq because of Iraqi deaths, but because of US deaths. The argument is that we are engaged in a bloody engagement on a par with Vietnam and WWII which is clearly false and is on the borderline between sensationalistic journalism and propaganda.
A case could be made that the death rate (based upon active military in country) needs to be compared to death rates for civilians in the US within the same age group, but that is a hypothetical that assumes military and civilian mortality rates in peacetime are equivalent which is not likely considering military jobs are risky even when there are no active engagements.
The point that I believe spree is making (and that I was making at my place) is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. The point is that the press & left are painting a bleak picture based upon the number of deaths (not a death rate) that is low in comparison to many other risks in life (and for far less noble a cause). That in no way is meant to minimize the loss or to diminish the value of the precious lives of these brave men and women. If you believe the rate is the issue and not the number, please think about whether the press would think 3,000 deaths was acceptable if we had 3 million troops in Iraq... would that make it OK? I'm guessing it wouldn't. No deaths are acceptable, especially in an unpopular war; the interesting paradox is that the press has used the casualties to create the perception of an unpopular war.
I think I'll cross post this since it's late and I haven't written anything tonight yet
Two thumbs up spree...
Commenting by HaloScan
