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.
Great! Probably most big Blue Cities are as dangerous or more so than Baghdad.
That is news, particularly because violent deaths in those places are lower now than in the late 1980's/early 1990's.
Fyi, files, and ping lists.
I have been sarcastically arguing this point for a long time.
Now there is the real evidence and I am surprised!
Liberals wake up in a sweat when they have a 'nightmare' like this. To them a black man has to be angry, dependent and the worst thing, not rooted to a purpose bigger than himself.
"Aw jeez, not this sh** again!"
He compares the violent-death statistic for the entire country to the statistic for a third-rate city. How many car bombings are happening in the 90% of places in Iraq that don't have any cars?
I have a feeling there is some statistical misinformation going on here... Does anyone know where I can get this data ( I assume its a cluster study). Im a bit sceptical with these numbers, but I have been wrong before.
Your more likely to catch disease, end up benighted, or just smell bad too if you're living in a blue state.
Some of our cities are indeed higher than 25/100K, but as far as states go, none are that high -- the very violent cities are countered by the relatively safe rest of the state. Only DC is higher (double). I'm sure Baghdad or Tikrit taken alone would score higher than any of our cities.
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 100,00
Third rate cities? Better brush up on your geography.
I remember Ann Coulter saying she would not leave the hotel at night in DC - when there was a discussion of leaving an hotel in Iraq.
I agree with you and don't care for how it minimizes the sacrifices made by our troops.
For example, we have 140000-160000 troops on the ground and they have been sustaining in the neighborhood of 800 deaths per year, not to mention the casualties. That's orders of magnitudes higher than the cherry picked stats in the article.
Also, the Iraqis who stand up to be police and soldiers are getting wacked at a rate of about 800 per month! It's still a low intensity war people!
Using the rat logic that murderers choosing to murder people in Iraq means we haven't won the war...I guess it was never "mission accomplished" for George Washington then.
"Some of our cities are indeed higher than 25/100K, but as far as states go, none are that high -- the very violent cities are countered by the relatively safe rest of the state. Only DC is higher (double). I'm sure Baghdad or Tikrit taken alone would score higher than any of our cities."
OK but I was questioning more the validity of the Iraq figures, which are not listed on the site you gave me.
Well - you're wrong again
FBI-DOJ Uniform Crime Report
Google it up
Do some research before commenting you are dubious
I have posted info on DC & Chicago on FR for several years
The NRA-ILA or your US Senator's local staff will send out stats
Joe Lieberman has sent out full FBI-DOJ Uniform Crime Reports for years
New Orleans is another killer city as are Detroit, Miami, Gary, St. Louis, LA, Houston, ....
Teen black males in DC have a higher kill per/100,000 then during the Rwanda slaughters were
Compliments of the US Congress and the Beltway Media who bury the info
Quagmire bump.
Historically, the military was where you sent young men who needed some sorting out and instruction in discipline
Yah.. I did some research, and most of what I could find for Iraq violent death rates were based on retrospective cluster studies.
Houston now has an even higher crime rate since the New Orleans refugees moved in - and stayed.
I ran the numbers once I the relative chances of violent death of a typical US male age 18 to 40. Those in the military, or just in the US. Basically the same. Those actually in Iraq, somewhat higher than the US average, and comparable to a US male in that age group in a large city with a crime problem e.g. Detroit or DC. Whole military is not that bad because lots aren't serving in Iraq etc. Chances of wounding were higher in Iraq, though.
If a US statistician tried to prove the US were at war by fatalities alone, he could not do it, and get the paper published in a peer reviewed journal. (Their standards of statistical significance would reject). Our losses in Iraq are so low they are basically at background. They can't go to zero - men do not become immortal -because- they are shipped to a -combat- zone.
There is no defeat in Iraq and never was. It is mostly media guff. There are enough Americans being wounded that we'd much rather have Iraqis take over the job of their own security.
Two other points of historical comparison. When Germany conquered France in about one month, it was considered a shockingly cheap and clear victory, revolutionizing people's expectations, "lightening war". The Germans lost 25 times as many KIA in that month as we have in 3 years in Iraq. (They still faced resistence fighters 4 years later, but nobody pretended they hadn't won, until US and British forces kicked them out again).
Second, because of the recent anniversary of the end of WW II, I happened to come across a figure for Russian losses in just the last 3 weeks of the war, in their victorious offensives into Berlin and Prague. They lost 93,000 KIA in just those 3 weeks. Winning. We haven't lost 3,000 in 3 years in Iraq. The rate is lower by a factor of 1600.
Miller read the story straight because it was silly enough, but then added the punchline, "But if you do go to the Gaza Strip, authorities warn you to bring your riot shield and your Visa card because in the Gaza Strip, they don't take prisoners and they don't take American Express."
(It was an 80s Visa commercial thing, for those unfamiliar with it.)
TS
Look, I am simply questioning the statistical validity of the Iraq violent mortality rate, as I have yet to find anything other than cluster studies from 2004. So far the best anyone can offer is "I ran the numbers once, and.."
I am currently serching for some standardised violent mortality rates.
I didn't harrumph about the comparisons to Colombia or South Africa. One might argue that Colombia is a special case because of all the drug murders or that South Africa is a special case because of all the government-sponsored death squads, but of course that is the point, that these countries and Iraq are all special cases in different ways. Those are valid comparisons.
Good point. I know Washington DC fairly well, and several neighborhoods are positively terrifying.
Prayers and best wishes for your son. Thanks and God bless for his service.
The Army recently reported that they were losing more Soldiers stateside(on leave) in accidents than in Afghanistan
Okay, so the murder rate is lower in Baghdad than in DC, Atlanta, pre-Katrina N.O. I am even betting Chicago has a higher. Does this mean that we can take our soldiers in Iraq and have them patrol New Fallujah (Detroit), DC, Atlanta, and other haven's of the criminal enterprise?
It would seem that Rush should be calling Fallujah "New Detroit",
instead of the other way around. ;o)
Welcome to FR, Szent_Adam_Kiraly.
It's nice to have you here.
absolutely
the us should quit/ withdraw from all the quagmires; in washington, baltimore etc etc and spare its men and women. keep them safe and secure
Don't forget the death rates for 750cc Kawasaki's, but I do wish someone was a New York Sun subcriber and could post the original article. Thank God he left the motorcycle behind.
(Thanks for the heads up, Grampa Dave)
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
I think that I have seen your replies re this data.
If this data is sound, we can pound the lefties with this data.
We can say to the young males in these Blue Cities, "Get out of the Dangerous city you live in and join the military, it is safer."
Would you please post a research link for us.
Thanks.
Out here in California, even moderates are saying that they don't want to go to the Blue Cities for anything.
Our church, once or twice a year hosts a trip into Gay Frisco to see a play at very good prices and a chartered bus. They may have to cancel the current one planned in June because not enough people signed up for it. The prices are outrageous, and people are fatigued with the homeless and other mental case roaming around Gay Frisco.
bttt
Hmmm, I wonder how the rate of having body parts blown off compares? Seriously, though, this is just a stupid statistics trick.
Everybody who would really like to go to Iraq for vacation raise your hand. Don't all jump at once.
"Okay, so the murder rate is lower in Baghdad than in DC, Atlanta, pre-Katrina N.O."
Some posters here are pointing out that it's not the rate in Baghdad being compared, but all of Iraq. Baghdad would undoubtedly be much higher.
just smell bad too if you're living in a blue state.
Catherine Allen: How often do you bathe?
Will Penny: Well, eight or nine times. It depends.
Catherine Allen: On what?
Will Penny: The weather.
Catherine Allen: Eight or nine times a month?
Will Penny: Eight or nine times a month? A year!
Catherine Allen: A year?
Will Penny: Well sure. You have a real good one when you finish the shove up north, like at the hotel in Alfred. Then one or two in the winter, if you don't catch your death. Then a couple in the spring and one more good one before you start the shove up again. The rest depends on what kind of water you hit on the drive. Well, what's wrong with that? That's as much as anybody!
That must mean some areas of major U.S. cities are as dangerous as el Anbar province, and most of Iraq must be fairly pacific and resemble the quiet residental suburbs of our cities. That analysis is in keeping with our experience in Washington D.C. visiting our son. Several times we were told, "You don't walk that direction". We asked the people at AAA about a couple hotels closer to his base that had really good prices and were told, "We never recommend that location". The place we did stay at had the counter completely surrounded by bullet proof glass. We followed his directions about where to go and what to avoid. I do wish someone was a subcriber to New York Sun and could post the entire article, so I could get some idea of their information sources. I went to Rep. Steve King's website to see if I could find information there, but either he did not have anything posted or I clicked into the wrong areas.
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?
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.