Washington vs. Iraq

tarzan

Member
Jun 7, 2005
41
0
6
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here is a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq operation during the last 22 months, and a total of over 3,000 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.:D
 

SilkyJohnson

Banned
Jan 16, 2007
535
0
0
ok if u die from your injuries suffered in Iraq but you die from them OUTSIDE Iraq they dont count those. is that simple enuff to understand?
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
Also, if you look at the TOTAL fatalities as a percentage of the population and compare that with any major US city, it's safer to be a US soldier in Iraq than to be an average joe in a US city. I've been pointing that one out for years.
Depends WHERE you live in that city and what COLOUR you are and how much your INCOME is.
 

Avery

Gentleman Horndog
Jul 7, 2003
4,816
14
38
Winnipeg
There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq operation during the last 22 months, and a total of over 3,000 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol than you are in Iraq.
Your post is a load of crap that is typical of people who parrot randomly selected statistics from unreliable sources, or of innumerate people who create their own stats and have no clue what they're doing.

First of all, you're mixing monthly and annual statistics. Second, US troops have been in Iraq since March 2003, i.e. 51 months. Third, the total murder rate in Washington in 2005 (the latest year for which stats are available) is 35.4 per 100,000 (per YEAR, not per month), and that includes murders using other means, not just guns (population 550,521, 195 total murders).

I'll use your average figure of 160,000 US troops in Iraq, since it sounds reasonable. Here's the right way to do the calculation:

As of today, 3501 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Over 4-1/4 years, that's an average of 824 per year. That works out to an annual rate of 515 per 100,000. That compares to 35.4 in Washington, and that figure would be lower if non-firearm murders were excluded.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.
Funny line, I'll admit, but not based on your "statistics".

I'm no fan of US involvement in Iraq, nor do I like Washington, but I like to have my facts straight.
 

jjinvan

New member
Apr 4, 2005
690
0
0
Your post is a load of crap that is typical of people who parrot randomly selected statistics from unreliable sources, or of innumerate people who create their own stats and have no clue what they're doing.

First of all, you're mixing monthly and annual statistics. Second, US troops have been in Iraq since March 2003, i.e. 51 months. Third, the total murder rate in Washington in 2005 (the latest year for which stats are available) is 35.4 per 100,000 (per YEAR, not per month), and that includes murders using other means, not just guns (population 550,521, 195 total murders).

I'll use your average figure of 160,000 US troops in Iraq, since it sounds reasonable. Here's the right way to do the calculation:

As of today, 3501 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Over 4-1/4 years, that's an average of 824 per year. That works out to an annual rate of 515 per 100,000. That compares to 35.4 in Washington, and that figure would be lower if non-firearm murders were excluded.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Funny line, I'll admit, but not based on your "statistics".

I'm no fan of US involvement in Iraq, nor do I like Washington, but I like to have my facts straight.
Actually to really get it right you can't just look at the murder stats or the firearm stats. Many of the soldiers died of things other than gunshot wounds and including car accidents for example.

So, what you have to do is look at the total death rate per 100,000 people and then compare.

Also, you have to count ALL the support staff as well, as you aren't comparing 'being a soldier in Iraq' to 'being in washington' you are comparing 'being in Iraq' to 'being in washington'.

Now, if you want to really have some fun, the americans in Iraq are there 7/24 (obviously) so calculate how many hours that is and then work out a deaths per person/hour figure for Americans in Iraq. Next, work out the same deaths per person/hour figure for American Highways.

I worked that one out about a year ago, and it turned out that it was marginally higher for the American Highways than for Iraq. I'd have to dig all the numbers out again, but I did NOT mix up annual and monthly or anything like that.

So, it is safer to be an American in Iraq than it is to be an American driving on the highways in the USA.
 

tarzan

Member
Jun 7, 2005
41
0
6
You guys all have valid points. The post was made only as an interesting humour, not to be taken as serious statistical facts.
 
Vancouver Escorts