namsaev asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 1 decade ago

I just found this out. What do you think about it?

You can find out the most interesting things when you play with statistics.

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. That's odd considering there are supposed to bemany more guns per capata in Iraq. Maybe that is wrong. Maybe there are really more guns per capita in DC/

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington? Or should we develop a new stratagy for quelling the violence there?

22 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The statistics are a little off since you are not accounting for all of the seriously injured people which is in the 10's of thousands who barely survived, plus we have never maintained a force of 160,000!!!! Our force is more like 140,000 and only about 15,000 of those troops are assigned to direct combat roles, the rest are support troops. Plus 2112, is a bit low. CNN puts it at 2,885 just for the Americans as of 11/30/06. So when you factor your statistics drag 15,000 over more like 32 months at this point and then factor in the 2,885 for a more reality based statistic.

    Then you may want to look at minority statistics in D.C. before you keep this up. I doubt there are too many upper class white government officials getting whacked in D.C. Then look at poor minority murders in the area and you are looking at more like 500:100,000.

    Point with all of this is when you don't know how to look at the statistics and your original criteria is off you are never going to come to a proper conclusion.

    Source(s): OIF II veteran and Intelligence Analyst
  • Doc
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I'm not overly impressed. I find that most people get VERY passionate about such topics and then throw all reason and facts to the wind. Sadly, I've helped to spoil the world population when it comes to matters of warfare and what we are now capable of.

    Consider that in WW I, the average death rate per month for all combatants was 98,000! And that does not include those who died well after the battle or civilians or disabling wounds.

    Just looking at Gen. George S. Patton's 3d Army records as he drove across France in WW II, he lost on average 1,000 men a week!

    So, by the time this generation begins looking at warfare and the number of lives lost, their expectations become obsurdly unrealistic.

    The comments by some of the other respondents regarding the reason we're in Iraq is again tainted and blinded by false information they've been fed. We are there because Saddam was no longer sticking to the U.N. scantioned cease fire agreement. And it's no wonder when you consider that the U.N. was corrupt and accepting bribes from Saddam. Had the U.N. not been accepting of its own corruption and not tolerant of Saddam's flagerant abuses, we would not be there now. The U.N. would be there. And for the record, we are not the only ones drawn into doing the U.N.s job. It just appears that we are filled with the most who don't REALLY get it.

    Source(s): Retired.
  • 1 decade ago

    Pretty sure your math is wrong.

    Assuming you numbers were correct (which i doubt):

    2112 / 22 = 96 deaths per month

    That is 1152 per year.

    Divide by 1.6 (160,000 / 100,000)

    Equals a death rate of 720 per 100k soldiers per year.

    Anyway, i would love to see you to ask this of a soldier who just returned from Iraq and see what response you got.

    Don't even get me started on the other collateral damage included Iraqi deaths, coalition deaths, possible civil war, creating new terrorists by the day, etc. Then the numbers really start to get ugly.

  • 1 decade ago

    Ok.... first your statistics are way off...in 1991 the rate was 80.6, but now it is 35.4.... so that is much, much less...but a good comparison, it is sad that the streets of DC are almost as dangerous as the streets of iraq........Now for the argument that there are 10000 soldiers injured in IRAQ overall....well in 2005 alone there were over 8000 violent crimes...IN ONE YEAR...that is a rate of 1459 per 100,000...are you kidding me...this is a great comparison, just don't skew the facts to make your argument better, don't sink to the level of Micheal Moore by skewing facts...

    But it is so much more difficult, because we are dealing with American Citizens...We have to be much more careful with the lives of American Citizens, than we do with the lives of terrorists. What to do, I don't know, but i feel that we should pull out of IRAQ, but another option i have previously thought of, that just came out of Hillary's mouth was to split up IRAQ....I AGREE....I hate saying it but i agree....so what should we do....pull out, and phase out

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    "Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington? Or should we develop a new stratagy for quelling the violence there?"

    I say we provide Humvees, M1 Abram tanks, air cover, special forces, Kevlar, helmets, M-16s, and basic training to every law abiding adult in Washington DC.

    This would solve two problems:

    1-It would make your comparison valid.

    2-It would probably dramatically cut down on violent deaths.

  • 1 decade ago

    GREAT QUESTION! Finally something with some originality and substance.

    We should do in Washington what we should do in Iraq - work on a strategy to make the situation better. Whether it is better training for police officials, higher bounties on the heads of terrorists / criminals, etc. - pulling the troops out is not the solution.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    your statistics are slightly flawed, but i won't argue that D.C. is more dangerous than Iraq. D.C. is the best example in the world of bad governance. With the exception of Tony Williams, D.C. is held back by the City Council and the School Board. Talk about throwing a bunch of monkeys together in a room...

  • 1 decade ago

    Get your facts right.You are forgetting about the citizens of iraq.Or dont you count them as people?Go watch more fox news.Do the math including the citizens and see what the FACTS are.Only a brainwashed fox viewer would compare any american city to iraq.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think the best thing for the country would be to scrap DC and start over again.

    They are constantly making laws that effect everyone except themselves. We really need to get back to the "all men are created equal" idea, you know?

    .

  • 1 decade ago

    Very interesting stat for sure! Interesting too that the biggest liars, thieves and just plain crooked people in DC are the people put there by American voters.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.