Joe Lieberman, 7/6/06: “The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago.”
Developments in Iraq on July 6
KUFA – A suicide car bomber blasted two coachloads of Iranian pilgrims outside a Shi’ite Muslim shrine in Kufa, near Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, killing 13 people and wounding 41, police and hospital sources said.
AL-ZAB – Iraqi police found the body of a beheaded man in the small town of al-Zab, near Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD – Gunmen killed Salah Hasan, a judge, when they opened fire at his car while he was driving in southern Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said. His driver was wounded, the source added.
Detroit: People murdered.
New York: Liquor stores robbed.
Los Angeles: Women raped.
What’s your point, Ollie?
We regularly have car bombs and beheadings every day in Detroit, NY, and LA? As crime ridden as those cities are, your comparison is beyond idiotic.
um… okay it seems I dont know how to include graphics… shown up in the preview though… um, well it had an apple and an orange next to each other and… um well conveyed that the one didnt even come close to comparing to… the… other… anyone else hear crickets chirping?
A handy graphic to better summarize robport’s statement as it relates to oliver’s:
Also, nobody is dense enough to claim that things are alot better in Detroit today than they were only a year ago.
Bulletin! Bulletin!
People die in Iraq as war continues!
Rep. Pelosi asserts: “If we were in power, no one would be dying in Iraq… or Afghanistan… or anywhere! EEeeaaagh!
Ooooh, that Bush makes me so mad!
The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago.
http://www.dod.mil/news/Jan2005/d20050119slide1.pdf
Excellent post coming on the heels of the previous one.
Well, I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.
Jeebus. I’d love to see this bit of nonsense.
Not me dug.
I am hoping that joe runs as an Indy. Holy crap can you imagine what a wad hillaries panties would be in? It will tear up the whole democratic party. Just another in a long list of leftist schisms.
Its funny to me how the lefties always refer to republicans as “intolerant” when stuff like this is an everyday occurrence in the Democratic party…
Run Joe, Run! Let the games begin…..!
Well, I’ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County. And the death toll is going down – which is bad news for those whose number one priority in life is Bush hate.
H*ll, I don’t particularly like Smokin’ Joe, but I hope he hangs on and beats the left wing candidate just to further infuriate the lefty haters.
Dugger
Once more, we see why Rob Port desperately needs a basic statistics survey course.
To illustrate, let’s look at an example:
In 2003, there were 5.7 murders/negligent manslaughters per 100,000 people (FBI UCR). That works out to about 16,500 for the year.
Iraq’s population is about 8.5% that of the US, so if Iraq were as ’safe’ as the US–one would expect to see about 1380 violent deaths per year in Iraq.
If we look at excess civilian deaths in Iraq, we get figures ranging from 18,000 to nearly 100,000 annually. Let’s use the lowest figure (18,000).
This means if the US were as ’safe’ as Iraq–we’d be seeing nearly 220,000 violent deaths a year in the US. That’s the equivalent of one and a half 9/11s every week.
For one thing his numbers are stronger that Lamont. Another he has already stated that if he does run as an independent and returns to the Senate, he will remain a Democrat. What was that logic again?
No just another neocon pipedream.
Saying that the situation in Iraq is better than it was a year ago, is like saying that the Houston Texans, are better than *they were* a year ago.
Making an equivalent comparision to a U.S. city is so ridiculous, on so many levels, that no further comment is necessary.
I see the same talking points from our usual intellectual “giants,” Dugger, Pedro and Frank. It would matter not, the topic, Dugger would always resort to “Bush Bashing/Hating,” as his defense. A further demonstration of his continued lack of intellect. Frank, I’m afraid, is clearly a crazy person, as was demonstrated by his “kill the liberal icon” lunancy in a previous thread.
Lieberman. I have lost much respect for Joe Lieberman, in the past several years, and more so recently. He once was considered to be the “moral” arbiter of the Democratic party, but has now revealed himself to be the consumate political opportunist. We got a hint of it back in 2000, when he would not give up his run for Senate, and asked Gore to back off on the legal challenge post-election, so that “it’s all about me” Joe wouldn’t lose any political capital in the Senate.
Now, it appears there is a very real chance that if Joe doesn’t win the Democratic primary, he’ll be the “Ralph Nader,” of the 2006 Senate Race, in Connecticutt.
Here’s my thought: If you take a position on an issue, particularly one as historically important and critical as the Iraq war, you have to live or die with your choice. Kerry sure did. Kerry never really got past the “I was for the war before I was against it,” stuff.
Joe. Democrats in Connecticutt think you screwed up on your Iraq vote. One issue, does not make you an “independent.” Either win, or lose with dignity as a Democrat, standing by your principles, or run as a Republican.
This “independent” crap does not wash with me, and I hope the same of the people of Ct.
JK
*bangs head on keyboard over and orev adsnda ovrervoovrnvve b bef* Jesus Horatio Christ the stupidity… Okay, let me guess what dugger’s got then. He’ll say something to the effect of #dead-soldiers-per-year-in-Iraq : #soldiers-stationed-over-there is less than #civilian-homicides-in-LA : #civilian-population-of-LA because those two are entirely equivalent, cause killing a random civilian is the same as exploding a soldier with an assault rifle and body armor. Lord knows how many of our brave servicemen and women have been brought down with shivs standing alone in back alleys, right? And what with that rash of car-bomb-muggings in LA last year, that makes those numbers totally comparable. I would look for his numbers just for the added effort of humiliating him, but I’m sure he’ll do a good enough job of that himself.
Or maybe he’ll compare civilian deaths and hope that proves some stupid point, like 30ish per 100,000 in Iraq and, well I dont know LA’s numbers but lets go with DCs of 45ish per 100,000, forgetting that we’re comparing a country to a damn city, which means, for fairness sake, we actually ought to compare DC’s 45:100,000 to Baghdads 95:100,000, or Iraq’s 30:100,000 to the US’s 5:100,000, but that would require intellectual honesty, and since dugger lacks both of the major components, it would be too much to hope for.
Also the death rate isnt dropping by any significant amount. May’s military death count was 79, and June’s was 64, which is a decrease, but then again March’s was 33, which as close to only 30 per month that the number had ever gotten since Feb ‘04.
Also Joe Lieberman should die in front of his children.
A vigorous debate within the party and a contest between differing points of view? What’s the problem with that, Peed’?
Quaker says”A vigorous debate within the party and a contest between differing points of view? What s the problem with that, Peed ?
Not. Exactly.
More like an idealogical pogram designed to purify the party of all the individuals who don’t support the current groupthink.
but in your particular “animal farm”, you can think whatever you like Quaker…..Remember, “all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others….”
The second link didn’t work. Here is is again.
JK the dope JK: Frank, I m afraid, is clearly a crazy person, as was demonstrated by his kill the liberal icon lunancy in a previous thread.
I didn’t suggest that anyone, including “liberal icons” be killed, you lunkhead.
Obviously, the truth to be found in the website I linked to either didn’t fit your argument (very likely) or you are just too dumb to either access the link or fathom its significance (also very likely).
Well, except for the point that he stands by his decision to invade Iraq.
Oliver will give you a big kiss for this comment. Pathetic.
Just to be helpful, you can make the “! symbol by [alt][0153]. I think it’ll work in a WordPress title.
Oh well here is a later one that is even worse for the republicans.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State Polls/April 2006/Connecticut Senate April.htm
Hey, I think I win an award. I reduced Rex to total, utter, frothing incoherence. Rex, after breathing in bag for a little bit, try the LA county homicide numbers versus US dead in Iraq numbers – same period of time.
Also the US Iraq death total for the last six month period ending June 2006 was 355, the lowest total for a six month period since 2003, and a drop of 18.6% from the previous six months.
Smokin’ Joe rules!
Pathetic how? I dont hate Leiberman just because he’s some stupid traitor to the party because he supports Bush’s folly, I hate him for a whole host of reasons, from his incoherent policy on destroying videogames because Grand Theft Auto kills and rapes people, to his belief that a hospital doesnt need to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim if they just dont feel like it, to how viciously he attacks his own party while never even being inquisitive about the right. The man is a horrible human being, and I truly think the only way to keep him and his particular brand of evil from spreading is for him to die, and in case its genetic, for his children to watch so they can be scared straight.
I know, JWG, Pedro, Frank, that the idea that the man may just be plainly disagreeable is an impossible one, and that the only reason anyone would have to not like him is because they’re infected with the liberal mental disorder that makes everyone who is not you stupid, but maybe, just maybe, for some of us, it goes deeper than our being imbeciles. Hell, anythings possible, right?
Incidentally, Frank, is there anyone reaining here who you havent called stupid? I’m asking for survey purposes.
“More like an idealogical pogram designed to purify the party of all the individuals who don t support the current groupthink.”
Pedro,
You mean like the Republican party? I point to any moderate in the House(I don’t think they exist) or the Senate. The Republican party has lockstep thinking down to a way of life. Your leaders don’t argue anything, unless of course Bush scrapes the record for most unpopular president and still you have the nuts who will follow. I think the only “program” to purify is the Republicans painting Joementum with thier party for supporting the war and at the same time trashing him for not being a Republican. Joe Leiberman has proven consistently that he is not interested in Democratic ideals. This is another case where if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck.(republican)
Rex…
I don’t like your style any more.
I haven’t counted. My opinion is that people who are not intelligent enough to realize that I am not stupid, are not too bright themselves.
And, oh yes, people who leave the “m” out of remaining, in their haste to imply that someone is stupid, aren’t too bright, either!
Ah, I was hoping you’d show up and try to prove your ridiculous little point. God you’re so cute when you think you know something. Well, I would begin by asking which part of my post you found incoherent, my statistical analysis or my explanation of my hatred for senator Lieberman, and follow up with why you believe yourself responsible for the “froth,” but since youve just compared a county to a country, and civilian deaths to military deaths (as I, if you’ll note, accurately predicted you would) you’re clearly incapable of objective analysis. Let me know when the glue fumes have worn off.
Well thats certainly one way to look at the facts to generate a preconceived conclusion. And certainly a droplike that is note worthy, why thats less by almost one whole dead armored soldier per every five dead armored soldier. Heres what I think is a more thorough measurement though.
Now, let me explain what these numbers mean. As more time passes, more people die. Comprendez?
Why not, scratch?
Republicans argue plenty whale…we have the “big tent”.
I for example, am a pro-choice republican who believes in stem cell research and is agnostic. I also worked for Ronald Reagan in my youth.
The republican party believes in the free exchange of ideas, but at the same time realizes that we need to keep our eyes on the ball. The leftists get all up in a tizzy over single items, witness lieberman. He has been a dedicated democratic his adult life, to the point that Gore put him on the ticket as vp! But now he has “gone off” the hard left’s reservation and is going to be sent out on an iceberg for it.
Whatever, keep up the infighting and sniping….the american voting public just LOVES that ….!
LOL
Rex,
“I would begin by asking which part of my post you found incoherent”
This part?
“over and orev adsnda ovrervoovrnvve b bef* Jesus Horatio Christ the stupidity& ”
(If its just bad typing, you get a pass, however.)
And no, ich nicht verstanden Sie. You lumped Iraqi’s count in with your count – I didn’t. Now, I suspect, that Smokin Joe was talking about US casualties since he is running, not for the UN, not for the Iraqi senate, but the US senate. The body, that in a bi-partisan vote authorized the war effort. Additonally, it hardly seems kosher to lump in Iraqi casualties since, with Saddam in power (the case if no American/world effort in Iraq), I believe we can surmise there would have been substantial Iraqi casualties without the US precesnce.
And yes people die. In wars. Under dictators. In this case the only real net variable is US military casualties. And Sen Liebs is right – the situation is better.
Dugger
drpedro:
Republicans argue plenty whale& we have the big tent .
I for example, am a pro-choice republican who believes in stem cell research and is agnostic.
Two things:
1. Perhaps you should talk about these issues with Frank, who calls pro-choice people “pro-abortion”, and seems to have very peculiar strict religious views.
2. Your views on abortion and stem cell research (I assume you’re refering to embryonic stem cell research, as that is the controversial element of stem cell research) are, in today’s political climate, leftist. Yet you bash “leftists” all the time. How do you reconcile these two concepts?
Perhaps you should talk about these issues with Frank, who calls pro-choice people pro-abortion , and seems to have very peculiar strict religious views.
What does that mean? Don’t you think I knew that about Dr. P already?
He’s Republican / conservative enough for me, but I am not the RNC.
Are you saying my religious views are very peculiar because strict, or strict and peculiar? Are you saying religious views are peculiar? Are you saying anything, besides proving you’re an anti – Catholic bigot, with which the liberal ideology abounds…
See my problem is, I respect peoples religious views, though I may not agree with them. I am not trying to purge the republican party of people who disagree with me.
I don’t believe those views are “leftist” or “rightists” I think the issue falls down on one side for a simple reason, and that is religious conviction. I happen to follow Goldwater’s general view on abortion: It isn’t my decision. I think those with a religious belief have to agree that ultimately the woman is going to be responsible for her actions. That being said, if you have a religious belief that it is murder, then you are ethically obligated to fight it.
The republican’s have always been big tent. It is just that we can respect and work with others whose opinion is not in lock-step with ours…something that challenges the leftist democrats at every turn.
Pedro,
You have sited Republican “big tent” support of yesteryear. How is it that the Republican party is respecting gay Republicans? We can argue what *you* believe, but voting records and patterns speak to a party that does NOT argue about issues or includes a diverse group of views or people. I will admit that in the short term it made Republicans succesfull because they are singular in thought and don’t stray, but for the long-term it is a terrible message. When the party view is WRONG or not supported, the party will only bleat the same message and do the same things. Watch C-SPAN and catch the US House or Senate and you tell me that people in the Republican party have several disagreements on legistlation. If they do as Mr. Burns says “I owe you a coke”.
& okay, the part just before that where I said I was banging my head into the keyboard is what makes this a joke, see because thats what would be showing up if I were banging my head into the keyboard. Also Jesus last name was Horatio. look it up.
& so when he s talking about things getting better in Iraq, he means specifically that slightly fewer of our soldiers are dying now than a year ago? Thats the measure of success? That fewer of our men with guns are being killed when theyre getting shot at by their men with guns? How does that measure indicate net benefit to the citizenry, which, I at least would argue, if our aim is to improve the lives of the Iraqi people, is the most important thing in that argument?
I agree, it is severly likely that saddam would have been responsible for yet more civilian deaths. To wit, let us take a closer look at that: Saddam took power in 1979, ousted in 2003. In such time it is estimated that he killed some 300,000 civilians through various methods. Comes down to an average of 12,500 civilian deaths per year. I refer you to my above post here where I quote the March 20, 2005 to March 1, 2006 (slightly less than a full year) civilian death toll as being 12,617. Lets look at that again.
Before Saddam: 12,500 civilian deaths per year
After Saddam: 12,617 civilian deaths per year
I ll grant you that averages and statistics are tricky things and this doesnt itself indicate that things are actually worse& but you honestly believe they re getting substantially better?
How clever of you to imitate me…
You’re a bright penny, you are!
Pretty easy to do … clap your hands together and drool.
Frank_D Jul 7th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
And, oh yes, people who leave the m out of remaining, in their haste to imply that someone is stupid, aren t too bright, either!
And people who don’t bother to include verbs in their sentences, Frank? Not too fucking bright, eh? Heh.
Frank_D Jul 7th, 2006 at 4:39 am
For the record, you can a ton of Superman DVD s here http://www.hidefdvd.com/
Roni, you are an honest to goodness troll!
I didn’t realize it until now, but you have all the earmarks:
Non sequitor responses
ad hominem attacks
silly retorts based on grammar
completely ignoring the issue at hand…
Phew, that really does explain a lot….
troll
… A brat makes such a post simply to get a rise out of people.
2. An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll”.
Welcome to my world, Dr. P
It’s challenging to have an actual discussion or any kind of rational argument in these threads. The moment it appears possible, one or both of you generally steps in with … insults, name calling, retorts based on grammar, ad hominem attacks … hmmm sounds like in-thread troll-like behaviour, yes? When you do it, it’s fine; when others do it, they’re slapped with the troll label.
If you don’t know what you’re doing is wrong, then what are we to do?
Ergo, “Jerky Knothead” “narcissistic sociopath” and “You arrogant wannabe Nazi prick” are acceptable?
Therefore, you are a juvenile, nonsensical scatterbrained troll is indusputable. Go home and tell your mother she’s calling you.
Well, I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.
And I’ve already show that it’s possible to travel faster than the speed of light. I won’t tell you where, but it’s somewhere.
Non sequitor responses
ad hominem attacks
silly retorts based on grammar
completely ignoring the issue at hand&
Phew, that really does explain a lot& .
It sure does…
Wait, who are we talking about again? drpedro, Frank_D, or Save_Ferris?
If we were in power, no one would be dying in Iraq& or Afghanistan& or anywhere! EEeeaaagh!
Lemme try one. Bill Frist said, “The rich should feast on the meat of the poor! Christianity should the only religion allowed by law! All Muslims and Mexians should be executed!”
Hyperbole is fun!
zython lets try for a fact based reply from you for a change….
Here is a snippet of what I said on this thread
the republican party believes in the free exchange of ideas, but at the same time realizes that we need to keep our eyes on the ball. The leftists get all up in a tizzy over single items, witness lieberman. He has been a dedicated democratic his adult life, to the point that Gore put him on the ticket as vp! But now he has gone off the hard left s reservation and is going to be sent out on an iceberg for it.
Here is what Roni said:
And people who don t bother to include verbs in their sentences, Frank? Not too fucking bright, eh? Heh.
Now, where in my statement do you see non-sequitor, ad hominem attack or silly retorts based on grammar? Where in Roni’s?
You see lefties, just SAYING something doesn’t make it true…..
Where did I condone Roni’s actions? And relax, it was just a joke (hey, if Ann Coulter can get away with that excuse, why can’t I?).
For the record, though, Roni was acting like a jackass, I will say with confidence that I believe that.
Zython 1, Roni = zero
works for me….
“Well, I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.”
No Dugger, you did not prove this. Not by a long shot. Why? Because crime rates, not raw numbers, are the proper statistics to use when comparing the safety of a city or region to another.
You cited statistics that there were more homicdes in LA County per year than there were US soldiers killed in Iraq. That’s true for every year that we’ve in in Iraq. The most recent statistics at the LA County Coroner’s office show that there were 1,053 homicides in 2003 when there were 486 US military deaths in Iraq.
But if you look at the homicide rate, you’ll see that Iraq is radically more dangerous for the US military than Los Angeles Country, the exact opposite of what you claim you proved. I’m sure you’ll all agree that
According to the LA Country Coroner, the homicide rate in Los Angeles County for 2003 was 10.5, as measured by number of crimes divided by the population multiplied by 100,000. The numbers and the formula is at the bottom of the page here: http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr02.htm
By the same calculation, assuming, let’s say 250,000 US military personnel in Iraq, the homicide rate in Iraq for US soldies was 194.4. That means that Iraq is almost 20 times more dangerous for US military personnel than Los Angeles County.
And let’s not forget, my friend, that US military deaths in Iraq DOUBLED in 2004 to 848 and 846 in 2005. I think I can say safely say as a current resident of Los Angeles County that the homicide rate here has not doubled in any of the last three years.
So not only is your statement above totally and completely wrong, the situation has gotten radically worse in the last three years for US soldiers in Iraq.
But it gets even worse than that. Since you think that it makes sense to compare the average homicide rate of a US county to war time casualties, I think it’s fair to compare average US assault rates to US military injuries.
In 2003 there were 52,069 aggravated assaults in Los Angeles County. That same year there were 2409 US soldiers injuried in Iraq.
Now let’s run the crime rate equation:
In Los Angeles County in 2003 the crime rate for aggravated assault was 518.2.
Using the above equation, as per the LA Country Coroner’s office, the crime rate for injuries in Iraq in 2003 was 963.0. Almost double what it was in Los Angeles County. Again meaning that it was more dangerous to be a US soldier in Iraq than it was to a resident of Los Angeles County, which I am.
Let’s further note that the number of injuries in Iraq has also increased dramatically since 2003 with 7992 in 2004 and 5946 in 2005. Again, the same increase did not occur in Los Angeles County.
So to recap, your above statement is without question completely wrong. But then again, you knew that since we’ve been through this before on the first thread you introduced your little comparison. It’s hard to understand why you would make a statement that you knew to be demonstrably false. I can only conclude that this is yet another piece of evidence that you are, as we all already know, a lying sack of shit.
drpedro Jul 8th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Now, where in my statement do you see non-sequitor, ad hominem attack or silly retorts based on grammar?
Calling midderpidge “piddy-widdgy” and making ongoing denigrating comments about frameone’s profession, among many other insults throughout the threads on this blog, is acceptable because it’s coming from you?
where in my statement?
Not “Where in the universe?”
When do you think you’ll stop commenting on commenters, and perhaps comment on the topic or on the substance of someone else’s comment?
You are the textbook definition of a troll.
I’ve been asked by people from time to time why I hang around here, “Since I’m never going to convert anyone.”
My answer is simple: So their unproven and unsupported assertions do not go unanswered.
Ask yourself honestly (and you certainly don’t have to answer me): What are you doing here?
“My answer is simple: So their unproven and unsupported assertions do not go unanswered.”
Oh that is just priceless. Just priceless. Frank, you’re flat out wrong so often it’s a wonder you consistently get your name right. There is, however, always time to start fresh on a new path. Accordingly, I expect you will be scolding Dugger in short order for this doozy:
Well, I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.
Talk about rates if you wish, the hard fact remains crystal clear: More homicides in LA County during the war period than US military deaths in Iraq. Take LA County. Take Iraq. The were more homicides in LA County.
My comparison is valid and correct: the Democrat-run stronghold of LA County is less safe for US personnel than Iraq.
And you wish so bad it weren’t true.
Dugger (No wonder liberal enclaves elect Republicans to run their local governments)
Frank_D Jul 9th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
where in my statement? Not Where in the universe?
I ve been asked by people from time to time why I hang around here, Since I m never going to convert anyone. My answer is simple: So their unproven and unsupported assertions do not go unanswered.
Got it, Frank, thank you! It is selective.
When Frank_D and drpedro use insults, name calling, curses ad hominem attacks, selective retorts based on silly grammar in discussion threads, they’re valid, un-troll-like responses. When anyone else does it, they’re trolls.
I wish Oliver would publish the Frank_D (my kids think I’m kinda cool) & drpedro “OW Rules of Engagement” list for the benefit of everyone else on his blog.
“My comparison is valid and correct …”
Hilarious. It’s not like you had much credible left anyway, Dugger, but now whatever puddle was remaining is just gone, evaporated, disappeared. If you want to compare the safety of two places you have to compare crime rates, which take into account population, not raw numbers.
The simply fact of the matter is that because there are less Americans in Iraq than in LA County the numbers show that Americans die faster in Iraq than they do in LA, thus it’s less safe.
Go find me any ranking of US cities in terms of their safety that compares raw numbers of crimes instead of crime rates. You won’t be able to find one because that isn’t the correct means of making such a comparison. But if you want to live in a fantasy world of your own creation, one that not only denies the reality of Iraq but also the basic principles of statistics and math as well, I’ll leave it to Frank, champion corrector of unproven and unsupported assertions, to set you straight.
Paul you mean to tell me that the aggravated assault rate in LA County is only ONE-HALF that in a third-world country that was just invaded and is working out 30 years of a homicidal dictatorship? And you consider this a bad thing?
I would say we are either doing a great job in Iraq, or a really bad job in LA…..
Dugger, youre just getting kind of pathetic now. Youre treating the Raw Numbers alone as an answer without putting them in any kind of proper context that makes them actually mean anything, hen misinterpreting that raw data to apply in ways it doesnt. Frame’s thorough analysis is correct, as a function of likelihood to be killed, Iraq is, as though you didnt know, less safe for soldiers than LA.
In fact, without the raw numbers at my disposal, lets use your logic to make an even better arguement that is even less true. Take the murder/death rates for every country in the world besides iraq for the year 2004, and total it. Then compare that to the same figure for the same year in iraq. I’m willing to bet that, in this world v iraq comparison, iraq’s death figure (not rate, which is the accurate measure, mind, just the number of deaths) is going to be severely less than the rest of the world’s. The only logical conclusion?
Fewer people die in Iraq than Anywhere else in the World, which makes Iraq Safer than Anywhere else in the world.
There. There’s your own logic applied to numbers that I dont even need to find to make that point. Iraq is the safest place in the world. Now if you believe your logic to make sense, dugger, I’m going to have to ask you to either repeat my point, that Iraq is the safest place in the world, to show how my logic differs from yours, or to renounce your own ignorant point.
Oh, and by the by, nice job there suggesting Democrats are responsible for murders in a last ditch attempt to turn the arguement from why your logic doesnt make sense into a flame war so you can call everyone trolls and ignore the main point of the post again. Classy as ever.
Oh and it looks like more democrats are starting wonder whether the democratic party is for them or not….this guys quote sure seems to confirm my republican “big tent” post above….
First, and foremost, I m a Democrat who supported and supports the war in Iraq. That s a longer discussion than we re going to have here, so let s just note it and put it on the shelf. I get it that my position isn t uncontroversial. But is there room in the party for me and the people like me?
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWY2YTEwYmE3ZDJmY2QzYzU3MTlhZmRkZjNkZGFlMDg
Maybe you guys should work on your tolerance eh?
“I would say we are either doing a great job in Iraq, or a really bad job in LA& ..”
Ya, sure we are Pedro. The legal definition of aggravated assault, by the way, also includes simply threatening someone with a weapon. So the LA County numbers also include a probably high number of threats with intent as opposed to actual injuries.
Did you also not notice that Iraq is almost 20 times more dangerous for American soldiers than Los Angeles County in terms of homicide? No, you just skipped that part.
But listen, I’ve given Dugger every benefit of the doubt in running these numbers. Would you not agree that 250,000 is pretty liberal estimate of how many soldiers we had in Iraq throughout 2003? Can you not admit that I’m being nice by throwing in simple threats with intent as opposed to actual injuries from assault in LA County?
The real question, however, Pedor, is whether you are going to sit idly by and allow Dugger to make proposterous claims based on an invalid comparison. Well are you?
So, you don’t know why you’re here?
Well, I’m pretty sure I do.
You’re a baby.
“Well, I m pretty sure I do.”
Then have it Frank! Dugger has made and defended an assertion that is both “unproven and unsupported.” You will not allow this to go unanawered will you? Afterall, that’s why you’re here. Set him straight, O Righteous Champion of the Truth!
rex,
No, I do not claim the raw numbers are an answer. They provide, rather, perpsective. How bad is Iraq? Well, not as bad as LA County. LA County does not equal Iraq, but if the real and only concern in Iraq is violent deaths of Americans, then LA County, something we can ostensibly do a h*lluva lot more about, should be of higher concern. Or any other US high-homicide entity. It would be my claim that the ‘concern’ about Iraq deaths is heavily tinged with partisan poltics and Bush hate – rather than humanitarian concerns. Else, why does LA County or any of the other high homicide entities come up on the progressive ‘outrage’ roster?
Dugger
This is an old argument that was settled in Dugger’s favor a while ago. Your attempt to polish it up, and give it a new coat of paint, doesn’t change the fact that he was (and is) right, and you were (and are) wrong.
Was it? How? I mean I’m honestly curious here because I dont know that is has, and the way it looks to me is that Dugger is (intentionally or not) misreading the data to come to a conclusion that is seems at odds with what most professionals on the ground are saying over there. His reading uses raw numbers devoid of any context, which in any field can be used to prove anything (see my last post about Iraq being the safest place on earth) but when put in a proper context his argument falls apart. His response to this is to say that context be damned, one number is bigger than another number so he’s right, even though the two are basicall incomparable to each other. Or am I reading this wrong?
Yea Paul….I thought every american life was precious…now you are saying only the RATE of death based on population was important.
So which is it? Is the fact that 2500 americans have died in Iraq, (and more in LA) or is it the rate at which they are dying that is important?
Rex, Slow down. I accept rates CAN be more menaingful if the comparisons are otherwise statistically valid. But gross numbers can be more meaningful also – depending on the circumstances. I have merely claimed and continue to claim the macro point that if your measure is homicides of American citizens, the entity LA County is more dangerous than the entity Iraq – for Americans. After all, the complete focus of the left has been the death total for Americans in Iraq – not any kind of rate. Right? OW has never missed a death milestone to use as a political weapon against Bush. He always uses gross totals: 2,000 dead! etc. Is it not kosher, then, to point out a good rebuttal in his own terms – that a limited Democrat political entity (a large county)in the States has a higher gross total of homicides?
I mean if gross numbers don’t count, may I count on you to argue with OW the next time he ballyhoos a death milestone?
Dugger
Good lord where do I begin… Okay, since you refuse to accept that rates are more representative than totals of the danger or something happening in a particular area, I guess nobody will be able to convince you that a major metropolitan city center is, in fact, not quite as bad as a war zone. Maybe someone can find a way to argue this that will make even you understand it, but I’m out of ideas on how to explain the obvious today.
Next, since when is # of American deaths in Iraq the ONLY concern with whats going on over there? The citizens have less access to essential utilities, live in fear of both occupying armies (ours, which they can see, and the insurgients, which are harder to spot from the man on the street) and the civilian death rate has been going up every successive year that we’ve been there (see above). Other concers regard the potential of increased instability in the middle east, Al Qaeda’s ability to use our invasion as a recruiting tool, moral and ethical concerns, problems with how the occupation has been handled, no-bid contracts being exploited (Custer-Battles for instance, to say nothing of the millions of dollars Halliburton admits they just plain lost) and the recent allegations of soldiers raping and killing iraqi civilians, to name but a few. There is more to base concern over Iraq on than just Bush-hate. I wont go into all of these ehre though, because the simple point is that first, you’re trying to use only one numeric comparison to evaluate the condition of a country whose problems extend beyond that, and secondly remove these numbers from the context in which they really mean anything to try and prove that point.
As far as lack of concern over domestic murder rates (which is what I think you meant to suggest with your last sentence) I honestly cannot comment too knowledgably, but I believe the answer has to do with crime being a product of social conditions more than anything (which, agree with their methods or not, democrats do at least want to improve) whereas military deaths have to do more directly with the poliits behind the war, its execution, its rationale, etc.
There is only one truth: If you are an American in Iraq you are far more likely to die as a homicide than you are as an American in Los Angeles County.
Again, I live in Los Angeles County since 1987 and I have lived all over Los Angeles proper: Eastside, South Central, Westside, Downtown, Hollywood. I won’t be moving to Baghdad any time soon.
“This is an old argument … Well, not as bad as LA County … now you are saying only the RATE of death based on population was important.”
Jesus. It’s astonishing. Dugger asserted that Iraq is SAFER than Los Angeles County. It is not. Not by a long shot. Not according to the numbers. What’s important, pedro, is to live in reality, not some ideologically-based fantasy arrived at by throwing out the rules of statistical analysis. If Dugger wants to think Iraq is safer than Los Angeles County that’s his business but don’t confuse it with real life.
Rex hits the nail on the head. Follow Dugger’s logic and you can conclude that Iraq is the safest place in the world. That’s why you have to use crime rates, which account for population, if you want to make valid comparisons between the safety of different cities or regions. I defy any of you three morons to find me a statistician who would support Dugger’s claim based on the number presented.
Let me try to make it even simpler for you dipshits. Los Angeles County, where I live, has a population of 9 million people. I’ll estimate that there are at present less than 200,000 active duty US soldiers in Iraq.
There were 1,053 homicides in LA County in 2003 representing .0117 percent of the population. In the same year, there were 486 US deaths in Iraq representing .243 percent of the population. That is again, TWENTY TIMES, the percentage for Los Angeles County. What can we conclude from this? That if you are an American soldier serving in Iraq you are almost 20 TIMES more likely to die from homicide than if you were an American soldier living and working in Los Angeles.
But let’s look at it another way. Since Los Angeles is so much more dangerous than Iraq, does it not follow that LA County Sheriff’s officers must be dying at a far greater rate than US soldiers in Iraq? Of course it does. So let’s take a look at the statistics.
Since 2003, 6 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s have died in the line of duty. http://www.lasd.org/aboutlasd/memorial/memorial1.html
There are 8,100 LA County Sheriffs. That makes the homicide rate over a three year period for LA County Sheriff’s 74.
Do I have to tell you how many US soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003? Here’s a reminder: 2544. That’s a homicide rate for three years of 1272.
Now if you dipshits still want to think that Iraq is safer than Los Angeles County fine. Just tell me where you’d rather spend your summer vacations: Hollywood or Baghdad?
“I accept rates CAN be more menaingful if the comparisons are otherwise statistically valid. But gross numbers can be more meaningful also – depending on the circumstances. I have merely claimed and continue to claim the macro point that if your measure is homicides of American citizens, the entity LA County is more dangerous than the entity Iraq – for Americans.”
Dugger, in the comparison you are trying to make in your second sentence CRIME RATES are THE ONLY VALID POINT OF COMPARISON. You cannot claim that Los Angeles County is “more dangerous” for Americans than Iraq based on raw numbers.
You are playing fast and loose with numbers and language to make a point this not true entirely for ideological purposes.
*remembers to add* Let me ask you this then though Dugger, if you are making the case that for the left to rely on gross numbers is intellectually dishonest, do you concede that it would be the same for the right to do as much? Would be willing to concede that rates, not gross totals of deaths, are generally speaking the better measure in that case?
It’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that Los Angeles County is “more dangerous” than Iraq when you are basing the claim on gross numbers.
Crap… this is going to end with me agreeing with you…
…alright, I’ll concede the point that, for instance, the recent 2500 dead soldiers milestone is not, in and of itself, consequential. Certainly not as much so as the rate at which they are being killed (one which, i would argue, does not seem to be going down significantly, but that may just be my reading of the numbers). And yes, there has been, well, lets call it an excess of focus on the raw number of dead rather than the context of that number (for instance, pointing out a comparison between the 140 US troops who died during major combat operations, and the 2360 who have since or something). So… hold on *downs a jack and coke to steady nerves while typing* …so yeah, if the next “milestone” comes (presumably 3000), and OW posts, but does not provide context for that figure (by, for instance, pointing out that the number of dead since “mission accomplished” is something like 20x that who went in major combat operations or something, hint hint) then… s’cuse me *’nother shot of jack* …then yes… you can count on me to argue that point against him…
That said though, I do think its kind of unfair to characterize opposition to the war as almost exclusively in terms of that one number as well. There are other, arguably larger problems with it that many do have, some of them I listed above. And if that is the only criteria by which, for instance, someone like senator Lieberman (who for the record I still think is a hellspawn) is judging progress, then he is sorely mistaken.
pedro, good thing I read you post twice. The first time I read it, it looked like you were claiming to be a “democrat who supports the war in Iraq”. Since you had said earlier you were a pro-choice republican. Good thing I read it again a little more carefully as I’m sure you may not have appreciated being accused of being a librul democrat.(joke)
Seriously, although an opponent of the war in Iraq from the beginning, I believe it is a mistake to attempt to drive members who support the war out of the party. The same goes for republicans who oppose the war. There are too many other important issues to place this as some kind litmus test.
Of course being neither democrat or republican, what would an independent voter know?
Did it occur to anyone on either side of this argument, that if the numbers are arguable, the Iraq isn’t exactly a bloodbath?
Or is LA County almost a bloodbath?
And I wasn’t even in this argument, and I’m a “moron” and a “dipshit”?
Paul, why don’t you go fuck yourself.
bushwacked: I certainly can appreciate what you’re saying, but you do realize that there’s only about 11 Democratics that agree with you.
I hope you also realize that the 2006 and 2008 elctions will not about corruption, global warming, or stem cells.
They will be about 3 things:
Iraq,
Iraq and
Iraq.
Frank_D Jul 10th, 2006 at 11:08 am
You re a baby.
LOL … Awww, gee, Frank … I know you are but what am I …
There are even a few republicans who agree with me.
My only question is do the same people who are trying to get rid of Lieberman, support Hillary Clinton? She is not much different on this issue as, while she voted for the war, she does not say it was a mistake and is trying to straddle the fence on troop withdrawal.
Of course my belief is that it’s time to get the hell out and let the Iraqis take this thing over. Fence straddling doesn’t get it done.
Ok what the hell is going on here? First OW starts railing against the protesting wing of the democratic party….
Then, Rex starts agreeing with Dugger (and me) who have been mocking the libruls about this constant death countdown in Iraq….and now Bushwacked is agreeing that this whole party purification thing over one issue is a non-starter.
Gentlemen, we have nigh upon reached Detente!
And on that note, Paul, of COURSE the rate is the only important statistic for describing the future safety of any given individual! I and I believe Dug as well, are mocking the liberal folly of counting every war dead as some sort of macabre chip in the poker game of the Left/Right, Pro/Anti War match.
OW, I say you cut off this thread here and now, before someone (Roni….I see you lurking out there trolly-troll…..)wreaks it…..
“I and I believe Dug as well ….”
Nice try pedro. Here’s Dugger’s claim:
“My comparison is valid and correct: the Democrat-run stronghold of LA County is less safe for US personnel than Iraq.”
This is false on its face. The question is this, Pedro: Are you defending the statement?
“Or is LA County almost a bloodbath?”
Calling all idiots: There are 9.9 million people in Los Angeles. The crime rate is a problem but it is not a “bloobath.” Today I got up, went to work, went to lunch (BBQ), drove downtown, drove to Hollywood, had an ice blended on an outdoor patio at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, watched a movie premiere start (Me, You and Dupree), went to see Superman Returns, got dinner and drove home. All without a scratch, not even a threat or a mean look. Now you tell me that I, as an American, could do the same thing Iraq. Then tell me that you are booking yourself and your family for a two week Christmas vacation to Baghdad. Calling you guys morons is being nice.
Actually, your anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean squat. I can say that about the last several thousand days of my life, does that mean no one was the victim of a violent crime within 20 miles of where I am?
Your obsession with being right has, as all obsessions do, make you appear to act like a bloomin’ idiot.
Or, perhaps, your obsession has revealed you to us as a bloomin’ idiot.
And here, among human beings, calling people morons is never nice.
Did you enjoy your “blended ice”?
You mean, iced coffee?
You guys in La – La Land crack me up…
rex,
Well, I’m not really arguing the number is meaningless or that war opponents have thusly limited their arguments to that point only. I spent my life with the type of people who are dying over there. The numbers have meaning to me personally and abstractly, but if we are going to have wars and actions like Iraq,we are going to have deaths – of soldiers. And if so, the numbers should be put in perspective with other wars and other areas of our life and culture. Otherwsie, one death is one death too many.
I would have hoped that every Congress person who voted for war, every ADmin official who helped sell the package knew and expected that ‘war’ would be war and that people would die.
I apologize if I didn’t answer your questions.
Dugger
One final comment. Since Mar 2003, we have had roughly 2,540 US war dead. That equates to about 65 per month or 2.2 per day. Here are some other war averages for the US: WWI – 200 per day, WWII 219 per day, Korea 32 per day, Vietnam 19 per day. So if we talk about rate and compare it to other wars, Iraq is very low indeed.
I have merely pointed out the gross fallacy of progressive criticism of Bush. It is progressives who have obsessively focused on gross total. I responded by pointing out that the Democratic political entity, Los Angeles County, has more homicides than the US in Iraq – using YOUR gross numbers.
Some commenters, (Rex reasonably – frame as per usual) have said this is all wrong, that rate should be used. Fine. I now point out, using rate, that this is the safest long term war in US history. (http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/History/US-war-deaths.html)
Dugger
Oh well, there goes detente…
Paul trying having your iced latte in South Central or Watts….make the same trip you did in Hollywood down there, do it for seven days straight….let me know how you do…
(by the way, although I wouldn’t recommend it for most things, I think LA Country General Hospital is your best bet for gunshot wounds or trauma in general. If your collapsed lungs allow it, beg the ambulance not to take you to King-Drew, I don’t think you will have much of a chance there…)
“Actually, your anecdotal evidence doesn t mean squat …”
Holy fucking christ! you guys are beyond moronic. When you refuse to believe actual numbers and facts, Frank, what’s a poor boy to do?
Let me try to give you mushbrains yet another way of understanding how wrong Dugger is when he says that “Los Angeles COunty is more dangerous than Iraq.”
In 2003 there were 1,053 homicides in Los Angeles County which then had a population of roughly 9 million. That means that in 2003 I had a 1 in 8547 chance of being murdered that year.
In 2003 in Iraq there 486 US soldiers killed with let’s say 200,000 total active duty soldiers there (and you know I’m being generous here with that number). That means that the avergae US soldier in Iraq had a 1 in 411 chance of being killed.
To recap:
Odds of being murdered in 2003 in Los Angeles County: 1 in 8547.
Odds of being murdered in 2003 in Iraq: 1 in 411.
Where would you rather be stationed if surrvival was your only concern?
Just admit it guys. When Dugger claims the Los Angeles County is more dangerous than Iraq he’s dead fucking wrong.
Frank_D Jul 11th, 2006 at 7:01 am
And here, among human beings, calling people morons is never nice.
Nice deadpan delivery, Frank! I can see how arrogant wannabe Nazi prick flows off the tongue more easily and smoothly.
“One final comment …”
And guess what! It isn’t a correction! You’ve got a lot of integrity there Dugger. What. An. Ass.
“I just said your anecdote was senseless. ”
Frank says: “The facts are senseless, your anecdotes are senseless …”
What evidence are you idiots accepting these days? Still getting it all from the gut?
Be careful, Roni. The wolves who raised you might eat you someday.
BTW, frameone the ferocious, I just said your anecdote was senseless. No need for another Ferocious Frameone Fulmination.
frame
As usual you lost the point completely (LA County more homicides – it won’t ever change) and have given up to spewing vitriol and hate like only you can do.
Dugger
“LA county was more dangerous for 1053 LA county denizens than was iraq in 2003& better?”
Once again, a total non-sequitor.
And pedro, I lived in South Central for four years when I was an undergrad at USC. That’s four years in off campus, non-university housing 10 blocks from campus. I walked and rode a bike every day in that neighborhood. Today I have no problem driving all over Los Angeles County and visiting any section of the city.
I’ll also be looking forward to your vacation photos from Baghdad. Tell me again when you and your movie mogul wife are planning that cruise down the Euphrates, maybe getting off near Karbala to take in the local sites? Can’t wait for you tell us all about it.
Lets make this simple for you Paul….
LA county was more dangerous for 1053 LA county denizens than was iraq in 2003…better?
hey, how are the lattes down in compton going? Looking forward to more of your personal insights into your safety there in LA…
“As usual you lost the point completely …”
As usual you continue to live in denial. I’m not dipsuting that there were more homicides in LA COunty than there were US soldier deaths in Iraq. I am disputing vigorously, however, your assertion that this fact means Los County is more dangerous than Iraq. That is not true and cannot be claimed based on the raw numbers of violent deaths in both places.
I will note, however, that you are now running away from your original assertion — “I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County” — without having the integrity to admit that you were and are completely wrong on this count.
“I m not dipsuting that there were more homicides in LA COunty than there were US soldier deaths in Iraq”
Well, that was the point I was making. You then said I was a spawn of satan or some such something for not using rate of death versus gross totals. I replied progressives on this site have nothing but hammer Bush with gross death totals (and then I showed the extremely low death RATE of this ‘war’ versus other wars).
Dugger
“Well, that was the point I was making.”
Nice. Now you’re denying that you wrote this:
“I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.”
And this:
“My comparison is valid and correct: the Democrat-run stronghold of LA County is less safe for US personnel than Iraq.”
Again, a pillar of integrity, Dugger. Truly.
No! The 100th is Mine!!
But about your point there dugger, do you not think it safe to say that the lower death rates have as much to do with a technological advantage over our enemy? I mean there are thousands of other contributing factors too, like how WWII for instance was fought on multiple fronts against multiple large enemies, whereas this is fought entirely in the one country against an insurgency which, small though they may be, still hold enough power to do some damage, but I’m just saying that particular comparison is not particularly valid either given so many other factors that can account for it. Apples and Oranges again.
As a Measure of progress in this particular war, I really think the only fair thing is to compare it to itself in different time frames, and if were looking specifically at military deaths, it doesnt really look like the number per month is going down very much if at all. According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ the June count is 62, down from 74 in April, but double March’s 31. I dont a trend line would show any kind of marked decrease in this number, but I dont really have the time to do one right now.
“What you done is taken one way to interpret data and ignored the other.”
Wrong, Dugger. The only point I have been disputing here is your claim that Los Angeles County is more dangerous than Iraq. This interpretation of the data presented is factually, demonstrably wrong. It is, withtout question, invalid. In fact, the data shows that Iraq is much, much more dangerous than Los Angeles County. Indeed, if you look at the crime rates, Iraq is some 20 times more dangerous than Los Angeles County.
You can introduce any number of different comparisons you want, it won’t change the fact that this statement of yours — I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County” — is 100 percent false. That is the only point that I have made, and have had to make repeatedly, to you, Frank and Pedro throughout this thread. Your inability to accept statistical, mathmatical, concrete reality — or, you inability to simply admit that you were wrong — is what has lead to length of this thread.
framykins,
I’ve structured this so you get post 100. Not denying either statement. Never have. What you done is taken one way to interpret data and ignored the other. My statements were based on gross totals – same as progressives use to score the war in Iraq. You use rate and say otherwise. I say if you are going to use rate in LA County which is Democrat run, use rate for the Republican run Iraq war versus other wars (and I’ve shown you what that looks like – you don’t like it).
Dugger, A Pillow of Integrity
rex,
Of course you are right about technology, but that very factor, that our technological edge makes the human price of war much less costly than before, casts a differnt light on modern wars deosn’t it. Look at the trend. Deaths per day keep going down. And I believe you are right about the last vfew months, but the overall long term trend in Iraq is down – but it should be.
And frame, no matter what, more deaths in La County. Your problem is that you are playing on my turf. Don’t you understand that? I set up the comparison and selected LA County. You guys were talking about gross death totals in Iraq without context. So I gave you a Democrat controlled entity in the US with a higher gross death total – and NOW you want CONTEXT. Indeed.
Sorry about that 100th post thing. Inconsiderate of Rex.
Dugger
“Your problem is that you are playing on my turf. Don t you understand that?”
Wrong again, asshole. You are playing on my turf because I fucking live in Los Angeles County.
I find it telling that you are now dodging, rather lamely, my actual charge as you avoid repeating your original assertion. You obviously know that you’re wrong but you’re in too deep to to admit it.
You claimed that “Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.” This is false. Absolutely untrue. You seem unable to understand that you cannot compare the relative safety of two places using gross death toll figures. You can only make the comparison using a ratio that takes into account the population of the areas you are comparing. That isn’t asking asking for “context”, that’s basic Statistics 101. It’s simple reality. Here’s how one study does it.
Now is it asking too much that you follow accepted, proven, standard methods for making statistical comparisons? Apparently it is, especially when reality conflicts with your ideological purposes. And what is that reality? Iraq is radically more dangerous than Los Angeles County.
Let me make it simple:
More homicides in LA County than US deaths in Iraq: True.
LA County is more dangerous than Iraq: Untrue.
You cannot arrive at the second statement from the first.
Lets do keep it simple. You now admit that if we sent 100,000 soldiers to Iraq and they fought a war for 39 months and sent another 100,000 to LA County just to live there, with no war, for 39 months, more would die in LA County.
What if every county was as dangerous for American troops as LA County? But then some are in Red States and run by Republicans.
Dugger
…no, wait a minute, thats not right… ok for the Iraq part, since we now have, what, 250,000 troops over there? and the current toll is just over 2,500 thats a ratio of 100:1, which would mean in this hypothetical situation that 1,000 soldiers in Iraq wold die. Conversely, introducing another 100k into LA to live increases the civilian population. Now while the average annual murder total is 1,000ish so for about 3 years lets go with 3,000 total in that time frame, but thats out of a group of, now, 9.1 million, which more widely disperses the number of who will die. So given that the odds of being murdered are 1 in 3,000ish (its late and I cant be bothered to math too specifically right now) that means that, of that set of 100,000 soldiers/citizens, that only *whips out calculator* that only about 33 would probably be likely to be killed, not counting for other modifiers like their body armor and weaponry skewing those figures… and also the possibility that I have entirely missed a number or something… but still those numbers are nowhere near each other. 1,000 in Iraq v 33-ish in LA, so like, wayyyyyy more would die in Iraq. Like 30 times as much.
Dugg, if your point is actually here to argue that the number of our war-dead alone is not itself an indication of failure in Iraq because raw numbers can be misleading, then I think in a roundabout way youve accomplished as much (and apparently infuriated 8 flavors of living hell out of frame in the process), but seriously, there is absolutely no correct way read the numbers that suggest LA is a worse place to be than Iraq right now.
Lets do keep it simple. You now admit that if we sent 100,000 soldiers to Iraq and they fought a war for 39 months and sent another 100,000 to LA County just to live there, with no war, for 39 months, more would die in LA County.
It is evident that you do not have a clear understanding of basic algebra.
The only reason more people get killed in LA than soldiers do in Iraq is because there are more people living in LA than there are soldiers in Iraq.
Ok, right now, there are approximately 135000 U.S. soldiers currently stationed in Iraq, and at least 2500 have been killed. So dividing the number of killed soldiers by the number of total soldiers gives us the ratio, and by relation chance of a soldier getting killed in Iraq for the duration we’ve stayed (~1.9%). Divide that by 3 years gives us the per-annual rate (~0.62%). Now, the homocide rate of LA county was 10.5 for 2003, which is equal to (h/p)*100000, where h is the number of homicides there that year, and p is the total population, so dividing both sides by 100000 gives us the chance of being killed in LA count (~0.0105%).
Now for your data sample. multiplying each of the two percentages by 100000 (the number of hypothetical soldiers you presented), we see that in 1 year in Iraq, 620 soldiers would die, whereas in LA county, 10 (well, 10.5) soldiers would die. So in 36 months (lets make this a bit easier and keep this in years), 1860 soldiers would die in Iraq, whereas 31 soldiers would die in LA county.
Raw data and rates are both needed in order to paint the full picture.
Zython,
A valiant effort. But what can you do when someone like Dugger is willing to lie and distort to make an ideological point? Either that or he is a total idiot. Judging from his last point, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s got brain damage. Shows what conservative thinking will do to you over the long haul …
“I think in a roundabout way youve accomplished as much (and apparently infuriated 8 flavors of living hell out of frame in the process), but seriously, there is absolutely no correct way read the numbers that suggest LA is a worse place to be than Iraq right now.”
Let me make one thing clear. I have only ever challenged Dugger here on one point: His claim that Los Angeles County is more dangerous than Iraq. I don’t give a fuck about any other point he thinks he’s trying to make because the first thing he wrote in this thread was the following:
“Well, I ve already shown that, as far as homicides go, Iraq is safer for our on-site military than if they lived in Los Angeles County.”
That’s the assertion he made when he began his contributin to this thread and it’s dead fucking wrong. It’s absolutely untrue and the numbers bear me out. And yet Dugger has refused to accept this basic, empirically provable fact as true. Why? I put forth the hypothesis that it’s the result of brain damage caused by prolonged exposure to Rush Limbaugh. Do you have a better explanation Rex?
rex,
I accept your fine tuning of my example.
Zython, If you will read about 2/3s the way up, we have aready been through endless iterations of rate versus gross total. Your argument boils down to rate. To which I have responded, that progressives measure Iraq’s failure or success based on gross totals – 2.500 dead! So I took a state side political entity and showed that its gross homicide total is higher than Iraq. if you want to got to rate soley,then look at my numbers for Iraq versus other wars.
frame, No, I accept that rate is an alternative viable argument to be made – versus gross – I just don’t accept the conclusions you draw therefrom. Seems to me if YOU use rate to evaluate LA County, why not use rate in Iraw veruss other wars. I know why you don’t. You would find the death rate for Iraq ia much lower than any extened war we have fought this century – Viet, Korea, WWI, WWII.
Duugger, Pick One or the Other, or you’ve got no point
“I accept your fine tuning of my example.”
Holy fuck, Dugger. You do realize that Rex laid out the exact same statistical comparison that Zython laid which I have been trying to explain to you since my first post. You do understand that Rex arrived at the same conclusion that Zython, myself and any sane, non-idiot person looking at this question would arrive at which is that Iraq a hell of a lot more dangerous than Los Angeles County. You get that, right? That Rex just proved you wrong? Jesus it’s a wonder you can remember to breathe. So fucking dumb. It’s astonishing.
frame,
One can only take so much of your scatter-brained ravings. See you in another thread
And never forget, more homicides in Democratic run LA County than US deaths in Iraq.
Dugger
“Seems to me if YOU use rate to evaluate LA County, why not use rate in Iraw veruss other wars. I know why you don t. ”
Dugger, what the fuck are you talking about? You compared LA County to Iraq, not me. You said LA County is more dangerous than Iraq. It isn’t. I don’t know how many times you have to have this explained to you or how many people have to do it. Your inability to accept to this conclusion only proves that you’re either one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet or you are being deliberarely obtuse because you’ve committed yourself too much to a lie to back down now.
I can’t say it any plainer than this: Iraq is a radically more dangerous place than Los Angeles County. It doesn’t matter how much “safer” Iraq is compared to other wars. That doesn’t change the fact that your statement comparing LA County to Iraq is totally wrong, demonstrably, empirically wrong.
Just to see whether you are either stupid or lying, let’s take the politics out of it and present the question as a simple word problem:
Your company has offered you a promotion which will require you to move your family to either one of two towns. Town A has a population of 100 and 10 homicides per year. Town B has 20 homicides per year but has a population of 1,000. Which town is safer?
Just answer this question Dugger and we’ll know where we stand.
Hilarious.
And never forget Dugger that you’ve allowed ideology to trump facts here. I know I won’t. Iraq is more danferous than Los Angeles County. The numbers prove it. Your gut didn’t.
“… you have to learn to stop when someone is yanking the hell out of your chain!”
Ah, pedro comes through. We can always expect the “I was only joking/Get a sense of humor” defense when a right wing idiot is finally, incontrovertibly backed into a corner by the facts.
I have to admit, pedro that I admire the extent of your hypocrisy. You defend Dugger even though you know that his comparison of Los Angeles County to Iraq is statistically invalid. Such a public display of ideological cravenness could only be an inspiration to all the right wing idiots out there who now can only aspire to the depths of your intellectual dishonesty.
Indeed, you, Frank and Dugger all ought to be proud of the ignorance and dishonesty you’ve displayed here. Your right wing idiot brethern will no doubt salute you.
Dugger, this string is a beaut. Really, you should copy it and send it to some right winger websites as an example of how to tease the animals…
Paul, you have to learn to stop when someone is yanking the hell out of your chain! The good news is, I can almost guarantee you don’t have an aneurysm in any of your cerebral arteries, cause if you did, you would have blown it out by now…!
ROFLMAO
Res ipsa loquitor paul, res ipsa loquitor
INdeed it does pedro, indeed it does.