If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000
troops
>> in the
>>        Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a
total
>> of 2,112
>>        deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000
>> soldiers.
>>
>>        The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,
000
>> for the same
>>        period.
>>
>>        That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and
>> killed in the
>>        U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control
laws in
>> the
>>        nation, than you are in Iraq.
>>
>>        Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.
>>
>>

Then when we actually use common sense we find that it's about 10% of the D.C population killing each other.

Here's a fact for you. St. Louis; MO was just ranked the most dangerous city in the United States. About 3,000,000 live there.. however, it's the population of East St. Louis that has given the city that ranking. There are more violent crimes in East St. Louis than almost any other part of the country, St. Louis city and County however is relativly violent crime free.

Against my better instincts I will respond to statistical chicanery.  Whoever came up with your amusing tidbit relies on you not to notice the following:

The Washington DC figure of 80.6 is the annual average, not the monthly average.
The Iraq figure of 60 is the monthly average, not the annual average.
Taken for granted each statistic is still true, and I'm not convinced either is, you would have to calculate the 2112 deaths divided by 160,000 soldiers divided by 22/12 years, which gives an annual death rate in iraq not of of 60 per 100,000 but of 720 per 100,000.

For the sake of fair comparison of violent deaths AND for the sake of respect for humanity, you must not merely count the number of American troops killed in Iraq, but also the number of Iraqi combatants and civilians killed in Iraq too.  The Lancet, a foremost medical journal, calculated that horrific figure last month, and the Bushies denied it without a pause. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

If this were a genuine statistical inquiry, not a right-wing Jedi mind trick, I would have to ask if they are including the number of tropps who die in the hospital of war wounds, not on the battlefield.  This is another way the liars in charge give a statistically deceptive figure of casualties.

Brit Hume made a similarly bogus Iraq versus California comparison a couple of years ago. 
What do they think we are...stupid?
Yes.
::)

Results from another debunker who wasted his time addressing this FOX News-style logic:
http://dc.metblogs.com/archives/2006/09/bizarre_email_h.phtml

OK, how about another perspective?

On 6 June 1944, over 2,400 people were killed in one day attacking the beaches of Normandy.  In the 2 month battle that followed, over 29,000 Allied forces were killed.  It is estimated that over 200,000 Germans were killed.

In February 1945, the US Marines attacked Iwo Jima.  In the 36 day battle that followed, 6,821 Marines were killed, and over 20,000 were wounded.  Out of the 20,700 Japanese forces on the island, just over 1,000 were captured. 

This is a war.  And to be honest, it is one of the lowest intensity wars the US has ever been involved in.  However, it is still a war, and people die in war.  They die in wars during Democrats as well as Republicans.  And with our all volunteer military, everybody knew the risks when they joined.  In fact, almost everybody in the military now has either joined or re-enlisted since 9/11.  And re-enlistments are at record highs.

Did anyone know MORE people enlisted to fight in Viet Nam than in WWII?

OK, how about another perspective?

On 6 June 1944, over 2,400 people were killed in one day attacking the beaches of Normandy.  In the 2 month battle that followed, over 29,000 Allied forces were killed.  It is estimated that over 200,000 Germans were killed.

In February 1945, the US Marines attacked Iwo Jima.  In the 36 day battle that followed, 6,821 Marines were killed, and over 20,000 were wounded.  Out of the 20,700 Japanese forces on the island, just over 1,000 were captured. 

This is a war.  And to be honest, it is one of the lowest intensity wars the US has ever been involved in.  However, it is still a war, and people die in war.  They die in wars during Democrats as well as Republicans.  And with our all volunteer military, everybody knew the risks when they joined.  In fact, almost everybody in the military now has either joined or re-enlisted since 9/11.  And re-enlistments are at record highs.

This does not belong in the same breath with WWII.  Iraq is not a war anymore.  It is an occupation.  We are occupying a country we destroyed.  We are occupying a country where the people hate our guts.  We are amidst guerilla tactics and civil war.  There is no military solution.  We are not going to "win" this one militarily.  We "won" the war.  We are "losing" the peace.  A hundred American men and women died in Iraq in October.  For what?  So the Bushies can save face.  So the petroleum companies can control the oil.  If this keeps up, thousands more will die over the next two years.  American military personnel will continue to die as long as Iraq remains under occupation even if we wait 100 years to get out!  This does not begin to address the incalculable suffering of the Iraqi people, who you know darn well are just as human as you or me.

Mr. Saver posted another foolish fabrication circulating the Internet and I wish he would cut it out.

Mr. Saver posted another foolish fabrication circulating the Internet and I wish he would cut it out.



and come up with something.....original? 

and come up with something.....original? 


A foolish fabrication of his own would be a step in the right direction!
;)

And re-enlistments are at record highs.


I applaud your post Mushroom, but would you care to back up that claim with a non-partisan link?

I work at a large hotel. Over the past 2 years we have hosted (provided quarters for) no less than 5 military groups, almost all inactive reserve called back to active duty. I have talked with a great many of them, and most will be damn glad when they get back and get out for good. No one I have talked to, save a few officers and high-ranking enlisted personnel (IOW, normal active duty), have any plans of re-enlisting for extra years.

  In fact, almost everybody in the military now has either joined or re-enlisted since 9/11.  And re-enlistments are at record highs.


Record highs?  if you believe that you must be.

The military lowered it's recruitment goals a couple of times so it could actually claim it was making it's goals.  They also lowered the requirements for enlisting (IQ, criminal background, etc). 

As for re-enlisting, ask someone who is still in the military the choice they were given about enlistment and you'll find why they re-enlisted.  You're given the choice of 2 more years stateside, or you spend the last six months of your tour in Iraq outside of the green zone.

OK, how about another perspective?

On 6 June 1944, over 2,400 people were killed in one day attacking the beaches of Normandy.  In the 2 month battle that followed, over 29,000 Allied forces were killed.  It is estimated that over 200,000 Germans were killed.

In February 1945, the US Marines attacked Iwo Jima.  In the 36 day battle that followed, 6,821 Marines were killed, and over 20,000 were wounded.  Out of the 20,700 Japanese forces on the island, just over 1,000 were captured. 


Yes, but the Second World War was a war that was necessary and had to be fought.

There's a strong case to be made that the recent Iraq War was pointless and should never have happened in the first place. After all, there were no weapons of mass destruction there, so how were the United States and its allies directly threatened?

And that would mean that, unlike in the Second World War, every soldier and civilian who dies in Iraq dies in vain.

I applaud your post Mushroom, but would you care to back up that claim with a non-partisan link?

I work at a large hotel. Over the past 2 years we have hosted (provided quarters for) no less than 5 military groups, almost all inactive reserve called back to active duty. I have talked with a great many of them, and most will be damn glad when they get back and get out for good. No one I have talked to, save a few officers and high-ranking enlisted personnel (IOW, normal active duty), have any plans of re-enlisting for extra years.


*highlights are mine*

And like you said yourself, the problems were with inactive reserve.  Out of those that enlist in the military, traditionally 75% plus simply do their 4-6 years and get out.  And they get out for various reasons.  Some turn their new skills around and go to higher-paying civilian jobs.  Some only did it to get money for education.  Some decide to start families, and want to do something more stable.  Some simply realize that the military is not for them.  And that is perfectly OK.  After all, the rank structure would collapse within 10 years if to high of a percentage decided to stay in past their initial 4-6 years.

For the most part, inactive reservists are normally pissed-off when recalled.  The same thing happened in Korea.  President Truman actually called up the Inactive Reserves before he called up the Active Reserves.  A lot of people were mad, but it was the way it was.  President Truman wanted experienced combat commanders from WWII leading his troups into harms way, not reservists that had never heard a shot fired in combat.

Those that re-enlist normally have a career in mind when they do so.  They are normally Corporals (or higher), and of course reach high ranks before they go to any conferences.

Then when we actually use common sense we find that it's about 10% of the D.C population killing each other.

Here's a fact for you. St. Louis; MO was just ranked the most dangerous city in the United States. About 3,000,000 live there.. however, it's the population of East St. Louis that has given the city that ranking. There are more violent crimes in East St. Louis than almost any other part of the country, St. Louis city and County however is relatively violent crime free.



Isn't that on the Illinois side?

Record highs?  if you believe that you must be.

The military lowered it's recruitment goals a couple of times so it could actually claim it was making it's goals.  They also lowered the requirements for enlisting (IQ, criminal background, etc). 

As for re-enlisting, ask someone who is still in the military the choice they were given about enlistment and you'll find why they re-enlisted.  You're given the choice of 2 more years stateside, or you spend the last six months of your tour in Iraq outside of the green zone.


here's how they're getting anyone at all to sign up:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/cameras-show-army-recruiters-misleading/20061103145309990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I know they told my cousin he wasn't likely to go to Iraq when he signed up last year, and then once he showed up told him that he would most likely be going to Iraq.  Nothing new of course, everyone I've ever met that was in the military told me the recruiter lied or misled them in some fashion.

"You stand I highly good chance of getting sent to Iraq and getting blown to smithereens by a roadside bomb."
I guess that wasn't such a good sales pitch. 

From the same news page, but it doesn't really warrant its own thread:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/naked-man-arrested-for-concealed-weapon/n20061104004409990006?cid=936
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

Here's a fact for you. St. Louis MO was just ranked the most dangerous city in the United States. About 3,000,000 live there.. however, it's the population of East St. Louis that has given the city that ranking.


East St. Louis is in Illinois. D'OH!

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000
troops
>> in the
>>        Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a
total
>> of 2,112
>>        deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000
>> soldiers.
>>
>>        The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,
000
>> for the same
>>        period.
>>
>>        That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and
>> killed in the
>>        U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control
laws in
>> the
>>        nation, than you are in Iraq.
>>
>>        Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.
>>
>>



okay....since Iraq is s-o-o-o-o safe, when are you signing up to go there?

East St. Louis is in Illinois. D'OH!


Correct, but it's part of the city.

okay....since Iraq is s-o-o-o-o safe, when are you signing up to go there?


I am too old at this time but I do SUPPORT the troops as opposed to some of that Kerry BS on how we shouldn't be there, we're wasting our time, and all the other rhetoric to bring down the morale...

 

here's how they're getting anyone at all to sign up:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/cameras-show-army-recruiters-misleading/20061103145309990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I know they told my cousin he wasn't likely to go to Iraq when he signed up last year, and then once he showed up told him that he would most likely be going to Iraq.  Nothing new of course, everyone I've ever met that was in the military told me the recruiter lied or misled them in some fashion.



When I was in Basic Training, we referred to the people just coming in who had not received their uniforms yet as rainbows (because of the mulitude of colors they were wearing instead of green or blue). We used to sing a song to them:

Rainbows, rainbows don't be blue.
Our recuiters screwed us, too.


Of course the T.I.s didn't like us singing that.  ;D ;D



Cat

I am too old at this time but I do SUPPORT the troops as opposed to some of that Kerry BS on how we shouldn't be there, we're wasting our time, and all the other rhetoric to bring down the morale...

 

What you SUPPORT is our troops getting killed in an unwinnable occupation of a country in civil war.  You seem to be an unquestioning follower of unilateral authority figures--God and Dubya!

I am too old at this time but I do SUPPORT the troops as opposed to some of that Kerry BS on how we shouldn't be there, we're wasting our time, and all the other rhetoric to bring down the morale...

 



We shouldn't be there anymore and we are wasting our time.  How can anyone think otherwise?  Even if you supported the war at it's very early beginning, I can't understand how you can stand behind it now.

Hey before this so called invasion of Iraq started, there was a picture floating around the web with the USN and over 100 oil tankers off the coast of Iraq. The oil tankers where flying flags from over 10 different countries. But the Pict vanished. A matter of security was the reason giving for it's removal. So even before the war started Big business was involved. So go figure. >:(

I am too old at this time but I do SUPPORT the troops as opposed to some of that Kerry BS on how we shouldn't be there, we're wasting our time, and all the other rhetoric to bring down the morale...

 


you could go to Iraq  as a free lance missionary--just like the Mormons!!!

you could go to Iraq  as a free lance missionary--just like the Mormons!!!


Sure and I could call what the 'extremists' are doing retarded and wait for them to come and attack me but one by one shoot them and have hiding behind an outdated barbaric lifestyle removed from a civil society but....I won't.

What you SUPPORT is our troops getting killed in an unwinnable occupation of a country in civil war.  You seem to be an unquestioning follower of unilateral authority figures--God and Dubya!


I DO support having a DEMOCRATIC free society to help take women out of bondage or organize a non barbaric treatment of women with punishment for those who chose to infringe on collective humans rights of freedom...something John Kerry doesn't seem to understand or give his support to along with others who BERATE the troops who left to help form a freedom for the country...

Have you heard MANY good things said to keep up our troops' morale?
Compared to 'WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE..LOOK AT THE NUMEROUS DEATHS-which is awful- BUT WE PUT AN INSANE MAN OUT OF COMMISSION AND FOR THAT I COMMEND OUR TROOPS...if they could do more by being there to give continuous freedom to the public from the savages who for whatever reason feel THEYare 'controlling' there citizens...I am happy to hearthat because if we don't knock out the lights of the maniacal tyrants there..they can end up HERE nad we wouldn't like that would we?