Top 4 Democrat controlled US cities more dangerous than Iraq. (Vanity)

BBC, LA Times ^

[Bon mots]

The end of 2004 is just around the corner, and we can safely estimate the body count in the 'Republican' war on terror and juxtaposition this figure to the body count in American cities run by Democrats.

I'm not posting this to demean the sacrifice that our brave soldiers have made, but rather to point out the hypocrisy of the MSM. They are making such a fuss out of the Iraq body count, but the sad fact is, that many of the soldiers (at least the ones that come from Democrat controlled cities), are probably safer in Fallujah than in Los Angeles County.

City     Homicides     Population     Rate/100,000
Los Angeles   592     3.6 million        16.44
Chicago          485     2.8 million        17.32
Detroit            346      1.0 million        34.60
Philadelphia    251      1.5 million        16.73

LA Leads in Murders

According to CBC (Canadian - Dec. 24, 2004):
U.S. Combat deaths: 1,034 (925)
Total wounded: 9,981
Non-combat deaths: 282 (252)

LA - Road to Fallujah

Number of Arrests, Index Offenses, Los Angeles,
2002-November 13, 2004
          Full Year 2002 Full Year 2003 Jan.-Nov. 13, 2004
Homicide      505             428                 442

[Bon mots]

The Democrats are constantly complaining about how many brave, young American men have lost their lives in Iraq. We should examine how many more lose their lives in the serenely peaceful environment of Democrat controlled US cities.

The total American casualties caused by enemy action in Iraq: 1034
The total American casualties caused by living in a city run by Democrats: 1674

But this doesn't tell the whole story, you must also look at the respective populations.
The combined population of the Democrat run cities noted above: 8.9 million
The total population of Iraq: 22,675,617 (July 2000 est.)


So the Democrats are busy screaming about how the Republicans are running the 'war' in Iraq, they should be explaining to the American people why the cities controlled by Democrats have higher rates of violent deaths than the warzone in Iraq.


I just thought that the above information and perspective was interesting.
So far, the body count in just Los Angeles and Detroit is higher than the combined body counts of Fallujah, Mosul, Baghdad, Tikrit and in fact, all the rest of Iraq.

[HMFIC]

I'm surprised that D.C. did not hit there. That really effective gun ban that they've had since 1974 sure does seem to work. </sarc>

[AmericanMade1776]

I thought Baltimore, Maryland should of made the list too.

[LadyLiberty86]

Are you considering the Iraqis murdered since the overthrow of Hussein?

[Bon mots]

The total American casualties caused by enemy action in Iraq: 1034
The total American casualties caused by living in one of the top four cities run by Democrats: 1674

Should have written as above...

(Coffee deficiency :-)

[tkathy]

Really a fabulous post.

[Bon mots]

I was only counting Americans.
My vanity post is not scientific.
But if I were to have a military aged son, and he were to tell me that he would have a choice of going to Iraq, or hanging out on a streetcorner in Detroit, I would prefer he carry a rifle in Iraq.

Just an observation.

[HMFIC]

At the very LEAST Prince George Co MD. A war zone unto itself.

[HMFIC]

True enough. The LIBS love an unprotected populace. It gives them more and more victims for their never ending social programs.

[bert]

The Blue Zone is the Death Zone

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The Demi Triangle?

[umgud]

It ain't just homocide rates. The big blue cities offer the most negative social statistics; poorest performing schools, highest welfare rates, highest homeless rates, etc., etc., etc.

[EagleUSA]

To hear the liberal media tell it, the horrors and deaths of WW2 and Viet Nam never happened; that Iraq is the worst disaster in the history of U.S. warfare....we should have been so fortunate to have had this level of causualties in Nam.

[Bon mots]

If I'm not mistaken, during the worst days of Vietnam (initiated by Democrats) we were losing some 200 boys per day.

I don't know the statistic for the worst week of Vietnam, but it could conceivably be worst than the entire last year in Iraq.

Does anybody know??

[Congressman Billybob]

There you go, injecting truth and comparative risk into a discussion of politics. That's just nor fair. (And I agree with you 100%. Aaron Wildavsky is the leading researcher on comparative risk in the United States, well worth reading.)

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Jon Stewart, You Magnificent B*stard! I Read Your Book!"

[Mr. Mojo]

Civil rights lawyer Connie Rice warns that with too few officers to "police humanely"....... gangs are crossing a line that has not been crossed before: They are now targeting police officers themselves. "It's one thing for gangsters to exchange fire with the police in situations, but we are now starting to see sniping"

Perhaps its time for the cops to stop this "humane policing." .....at least in the areas in question.

[EagleUSA]

I don't know the statistic for the worst week of Vietnam, but it could conceivably be worst than the entire last year in Iraq.
=====
I believe the total deaths in Nam was around 56,000 (plus or minus). A total waste.

[Alter Kaker]

The combined population of the Democrat run cities noted above: 8.9 million The total population of Iraq: 22,675,617 (July 2000 est.)

If you look at total Iraq population then you must look at IRAQI national casaulties not American casualties which are many many thousand and unknown. If you look at only American casualties, then look at 150,000 troop total not 22 million.

[LadyLiberty86]

But if I were to have a military aged son, and he were to tell me that he would have a choice of going to Iraq, or hanging out on a streetcorner in Detroit, I would prefer he carry a rifle in Iraq.

Then the more correct comparison would be the number of cops killed in the line of duty in a major American city versus the number of American and Iraqi soldiers killed in a Iraqi city with a similarly sized population.

[Bon mots]

True enough.
I'm aware of how stats work, as well as how the left wing media distorts them to suit their needs.

By the same token, the bulk of the casualties described in US cities mostly affect military age young men.

My post was meant to be thought provoking, not a comprehensive statistical analysis.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

You're exactly right. Gives them purpose in life. They need to be needed.

[AppyPappy]

I think LA alone beats out Iraq. We have been in Iraq for two years. You need to take the two year numbers for LA.

[Alter Kaker]

My post was meant to be thought provoking, not a comprehensive statistical analysis.

Then don't compare apples to oranges because that is dishonest.

[Ozone34]

I recall reading somewhere that the probability of a violent death for an African-American male in his twenties was actually lower if he was serving in the armed forces in Iraq as opposed to living in the USA.

[tkathy]

The dims like their endless circle of perpetual victimhood. How else would they get any votes???

[BIGZ]

I would prefer he carry a rifle in Iraq.

Rifle is the operative word. These Democrats can't or do not want to see the culture change in the US, IE professional Basketball.

What idiots.

[Bon mots]

Okay, so maybe the standard deviation of my stats is less than optimal, however that never stopped the MSM!
At least I'm presenting this as something of interest, and not attempting to pass it off as 'fact', the way our MSM does.

Okay, here is a juxtaposition that doesn't exaggerate. Look at how Republican controlled New York City compares to the dangerous Democrat controlled cities mentioned in my post. The murder rate per 100,000 population is less than half that in the other cities run by Dems.

KILLINGS IN THE U.S.
Los Angeles is leading the nation's metropolitan cities in total number of homicides. Numbers are year-to-date through Nov. 20, 2002.
City	Homocides	Population	Per 100,000
Los Angeles	592	3.6 million	16.44
New York	489	8.0 million	6.11
Chicago	485	2.8 million	17.32
Detroit	346	1.0 million	34.60
Philadelphia	251	1.5 million	16.73
SOURCE: Daily News research

Lo and behold... less homicides in New York than in Los Angeles... but New York has more than DOUBLE THE POPULATION!

Just goes to show, Dems cannot run cities. Good thing they are not runnning the war either.

Oh, and thank God on your knees that Democrats are not running the country.

[LadyLiberty86]

At least I'm presenting this as something of interest, and not attempting to pass it off as 'fact', the way our MSM does.

Then ask the mods to change the headline for this thread

[Bon mots]

Go ahead.

[syriacus]

hey should be explaining to the American people why the cities controlled by Democrats have higher rates of violent deaths than the warzone in Iraq.

Nice thread.

[concerned about politics]

You'll also find all the pollution in Democrat controlled cities, as well as all the homelessness. They're the home of every unclean bird one can think of - the drunks, the homosexuals, the prostitutes, the drug lords, the failing schools, the insane.
Somehow, in their disturbed little realities, they feel they're the ones qualified to run the entire country. Heck, they can't even run their own households!

[sgtbono2002]

The cities are not all bad. Lets take Washington DC for Example: Where Hillary lives its perfectly safe. Now move over to Anacostia and its like going to Falluja. Anacostia is where the home of the famous Frederick Douglas is, his home Cedar Hill sits on the top of a hill overlooking crime, corruption, drugs ,daily shootings, murder. Its a National Historic site run by the Park Service. Its a nice place to visit if you can get a Park Service cop to escort you there. Otherwise I wouldnt reccommend it unless you have an Armored car.

[LadyLiberty86]

Go ahead.

Your mess. Take some personal responsibility.

[cardinal4]

Just an observation.

But a good one. Take a ride on Illinois 3 through East Saint Louis and decide which is safer, Iraq or the gangbangers..

[syriacus]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076663/posts
Americans suffered over 2X as many casualties per month in early 1968 (when bush graduate) than in early 1966 (When Kerry graduated).

1966 --Jan - 196; Feb - 208; Mar - 231;

1968 -- Jan - 498; Feb - 506; Mar - 515

Deadliest years in Viet Nam

Notice the number of deaths in 1965 (1926 deaths in the year ending 6 months before Kerry's Graduation) as opposed to the number of deaths in 1967 (11,348 deaths in the year ending 6 months before Bush's graduation)


VIETNAM WAR (ranking of the years by deaths)

YEAR -- ALL DEATHS

1968 -- 16,869
1969 -- 11,775
1967 -- 11,348
1966 -- 6,333
1970 -- 6,164
1971 -- 2,413
1965 -- 1,926
1972 had far fewer deaths because US troops were pulled from the field by August

Service in Viet Nam looked much less dangerous when Kerry was deciding what to do when he graduated.

[johnmilken]

You cannot be serious. The US body count in Iraq is over a thousand from from 150,000 soldiers there, compared to 1,600 dead out of 8.9 million in those cities. If you really think it's more dangerous for a US citizen to walk the streets of LA than Iraq then I suggest you need to leave your house more often. You could easily make the point that more Americans were killed driving this year than in Iraq - and so what? We should stop armoring Humvees out there and start armoring cars out here? I took your post as a joke but the replies seem to be taking it seriously. To suggest that the men and women serving in Iraq are facing a less dangerous situation than the average citizen in Chicago is a gross distortion and ultimately a disservice to the sacrifice of our troops.

[LadyLiberty86]

Service in Viet Nam looked much less dangerous when Kerry was deciding what to do when he graduated.

I dislike Kerry as much as anyone, but Bush explicitly opted out of serving in Vietnam.

[AMHN]

Then you add the 10's of 1000's of unborn human babies being put to death under the protected slaughter houses of the innocent (Roe v Wade), all in the name of choice, and you have four cities probably more dangerous to live in than being a Jew in a German Concentration Camp with Hitler in power (let alone an American or Iraqi in Iraq).

Now mix in the tendency of the Democrats to seek this kind of power over and over again (remember Dred Scott and the declaration of Blacks being less than human, the infiltration of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party after the civil war [lets be careful this time as they seek recourse from the last election], the KKK, and the problems during the 60s in the south [which Dem's try to make the world think is because of Republicans]) and you have a real "killer" love that only Satan himself could admire.

I'd love to see someone put together the statistics on how many people have died as a result of the inaction and/or protest action of the so called anti-war groups. Just a back of the envelop calculation shows that of the 25 million killed in the USSR, as the Dem's lovingly referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe", the appeasers of WWII that told the world Hitler was no threat, or the Dem's that kept us out of Central American while 1000s died, or the anti-war protesters of the 1960s that claimed victory as they hamstrung the American President only to let 3 million die in the killing fields upon our departure in Vietnam. Sounds like inaction has killed more than all the worlds wars combined.

And we let them run our cities....

[Nita Nupress]

"Great vanity and food for thought" bump.

[Bon mots]

Your mess. Take some personal responsibility.

Oh PUHLEEZE.
You consistenly support leftist positions and criticize anyone who attacks Democrats.
Go to DU if you don't like Conservative provocation.

Of the nearly 40 posts so far on this thread, you are the only one whining.

[Nita Nupress]

My great grandfather came to north central Texas from Tennessee in 1855.

Speaking of vanities... If anyone ever starts a thread on Texas history to discuss genealogy, please ping me. It wouldn't be too far-fetched for some of us to be distantly related. Some of my ancestors came to Texas around 1855 from Tennessee also. :-)

[wtc911]

Your vanity could not be more fault-ridden. For starters, if you want to compare US deaths, using a number like 1200, then the only population you can use as a base is the total number of Americans in theater. Even using 150,000 for that number the deaths per 100,000 becomes 800.

If you want to use (as you do) the Iraqi population then you have to add in Iraqi deaths. What would you say that is? 20,000? 40,000?

Trying to "prove" that Los Angeles is more dangerous than Baghdad is just silly.

[ishmac]

Aaron Wildavsky is the leading researcher on comparative risk in the United States, well worth reading.

I actually had Wildavsky for a poli sci class at Berkeley (of all places!). Great teacher. As far as I know he taught there until he died a couple of years ago.

[bcadrew]

I wonder how many of those deaths are accident and crime related? The American deaths you are reporting are scued because they subtract deaths that occur by accident. They also only include American GIs. The annual death tolls of these American cities are factored out of the total population. So, if your are going to consider death tolls, it would be 1000 per 100,000 and that is a one in one hundred chance of being killed. If you add accidents and serious injuries to the total, the total becomes 11,000 troops killed or seriously injured in accidents or combat. This means your chances of at least being seriously injured are one in ten. Now I grew up in an American ghetto and it wasn't near that tough.

[TN4Liberty]

This blogger asked the same question and came up with this answer.

"That Quick is right can be demonstrated with a five-minute Google search, a PDF reader, and some simple arithmetic. This site gives "total in-theater deaths" for the U.S. military in Vietnam (1955-75) as 58,198 (not counting another 1,876 killed, missing, or captured with no remains, which I will omit, though a case could be made for including them). According to this site, over 98% of Marine deaths in Vietnam came in the six years 1965 through 1970. If the other services followed the same pattern, that means an average of 26.03 deaths per day over those six years. Perhaps casualties in the other services were a bit more spread out: let's say 25 per day as a useful estimate.

So far in Iraq, U.S. military deaths total 25 over 5 days.* To turn Iraq into a new Vietnam, we would have to quintuple the casualty rate, and keep it quintupled for another 5 years, 11 months, and 25 days. So far -- knock on wood -- the Vietnam comparison is absurd."

Link: http://www.doctorweevil.org/archives/000574.html

[LadyLiberty86]

Of the nearly 40 posts so far on this thread, you are the only one whining.

Then you are not reading all of the other posts.

[LadyLiberty86]

You consistenly support leftist positions and criticize anyone who attacks Democrats.

Why don't you address the substance of my comments and leave the personal attacks to the less informed.

[solo gringo]

To make your point you will have to teach the democrats how to read.

[Axenolith]

Are you considering the Iraqis murdered since the overthrow of Hussein?

While irrelevant to the story, there were approximately 75% less Iraqis killed in the year following the invasion that that generally attributed to Saddam Hussein in any given year.

[Bon mots]

I dislike Kerry as much as anyone, but Bush explicitly opted out of serving in Vietnam.

With posts such as the one above, (posted by you), I doubt that you are really a conservative.
This thread was properly labeled as a "Vanity", and therefore readers expect to find a prejudiced opinion.

The fact I illuminated is that in sheer numbers, more Americans died violently in the cities mentioned last year than in Iraq. That cannot be disputed.
This was posted to provoke thought and discussion.
Everyone does not have to agree with this thread for it to be thought provoking. The posts which follow, both pro and con improve upon it.