An NBC reporter in Iraq refutes those, like Fox’s Brit Hume, who try to minimize Iraqi violence by saying it’s just like any American city.
I’m more puzzled by comments that the violence isn’t any worse than any American city. Really? In which American city do 60 bullet-riddled bodies turn up on a given day? In which city do the headless bodies of ordinary citizens turn up every single day? In which city would it not be news if neighborhood school children were blown up? In which neighborhood would you look the other way if gunmen came into restaurants and shot dead the customers?
But….I thought Baghdad was safer tahn LA.
Let me help. A while back, to frame’s utter chagrin, I demonstrated more Americans were dying violent deaths in LA County than in Iraq.
Yes, my example was selective and true – much like the NBC reporters. For isntance,wonder why he didn’t measure typical war time casualty rates – this ‘war’ versus past wars like Vietnam, Korea etc.
Anybody? Could it be to do so would not show the American action in Iraq so negatively, and by inference, not show the MSM-hated Bush so negatively?
Dug,
Refresh our memory as to your analysis re: Baghdad being safer than LA. I missed it the first time around.
Your pal,
MJB
Shorter Dugger:
I, blogging from my parents’ basement, understand the way things are in Iraq better than these biased reporters who think they know stuff because they’re, like, actually there.
Americans, Dugger, not overall deaths.
Yes, the difference between apples and ornages certainly demonstrates how much teh 3vil librul the media is, dugger, well done. Of course there is the simple fact that the difference between casualty rates has more do with the nature of those wars being different than this one, and that massive advancements in technology in the past 30 years have aided our ability to fight wars better and more safely, involved a clearly defined enemy rather than one who’s number fluctuates daily as each battle effectively fuels their ideological cause, and took place in a forest instead of the desert, but yeah the two are totally comparable.
Wait, heres your logic thrown back at you. in 2000 there were about 6.5 million car accidents. This in spite of the advancements in car safety over the past few years like seatbelts, airbags, etc. 6.5 million accidents out of 140 million cars in the US, which is around a 4% accident rate. Now compare that to an estimated 0 accidents out of 8,000 cars in the US in 1900. Clearly cars manufactured in the 1900s are more safe than those made today, no?
dugger doesn’t like having his balloon popped.
A more apt comparison, Dugger, might be the number of American deaths in Iraq versus the number of law enforcement officers killed in L.A.
Good point, Quaker. But as long as Dugger is claiming “Americans,” I remain curious. As I understand it, there are about 140,000 American troops in Iraq. I’m not sure what that means in terms of battlefield troops, but let’s just assume all 140,000 are at risk for the moment. Let’s also take Dugger’s grotesque assumption that this body of troops is somehow equivalent to the population of a 140,000-citizen American city. Bear in mind that if you were to compare the civilian homicide rate in Baghdad to any other city in the world, it would be off the charts. 60 in a day! Lord only knows what their annual homicide rate is. So naturally, Dugger has to ignore civilians. Is that What Jesus Would Do, Dugger?
Back on the troop comparisons, I used the 2003 homicide statistics I found here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
LA: 7.4 murders per 100,000 citizens. Therefore, if LA was converted into a city of 140,000 (7.4 x 1.4), LA would produce a murder rate of 10.36 soldiers/citizens each year.
Baltimore: 41.9 per 100k x 1.4 = 58.66 murders per 140,000 per year
Detroit: 39.4 = 55.16 murders per 140,000 per year
New Orleans: 57.7 = 80.78 murders per 140,000 per year
By contrast, summing up U.S. troop casualities in the year 2005, you get this number: 846 U.S. troop casualties, presumably out of 140,000, per year.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
So unless I’m reading these figures wrong, it seems that U.S. soldiers in Iraq actually do have a higher chance of being killed than do the residents of any U.S. city. Also, I am inclined to interpret these findings as suggestive of the fact that Dugger is a drooling fucking moron, the idiocy of whose claims is exceeded only by his shamelessness and mindless bootlicking. I could be wrong, though.
Also, Dugger’s/Hume’s comments reveal the utter uninterest in the plight of actual Iraqis. All you want out of them is their purple fingers; after that, you don’t care if they’re dead or alive, do you, Dugger?
Holy hell we beat Detroit?
In 2003, yes, you did. I didn’t see numbers for the smaller, post-industrial towns with a reputation for homicide, like Camden, NJ or East St. Louis, but I did find Gary, Indiana at 67, which beats Baltimore.
Also, Rio de Janeiro is at 73.6, for an international flavor.
Do you watch the Wire, Rex? If you’re interested in Baltimore crime, or just the decline of the American city, there’s nothing better. Also that book Homicide is pretty amazing, and only 4.99 in your average airport bookstore.
Here’s one for you Dumbber….
If NO American troops were in Iraq, there would be a 0% chance of them getting killed.
JK
Tom, If you are going to be so immature and vulgar, you should take the time to be at least halfways right.
First off, in your elementary school, have they taught you the diffrence between city and county? You used city only. My clearly stated example was the (entire) county. GO back and read it, Tommy. Warning: if you can comprehend stuff, it might hurt. So your entire little footstomping hissy-fit tantrum was screwed up from the start. Maybe you better let the big people do the thinking and you do what you do best – screech profanities.
Second, (hate to pile on, but you deserve it) I did not refer to rate. You want to construct an example that refers to rate, have at it, but mine did not. You scr*wed up a second time.
MJB, Your memory is corrupt.
And yes Quaker that would be a more apt comaparison. There are undoubdtedly several more apt comparisons but then that would be my precise point re NBC – wouldn’t it.
For instance he asked in what American city do 60 bullet riddled bodies turn up on a given day. Well, I don’t know about ‘bullet riddled’, but I know there have been instances of greater violent death, even homicide in American cities in one day. So thats out the window. Seems like he could have picked a better comparison, doesn’t it?
Well, I don’t know about ‘bullet riddled’, but I know there have been instances of greater violent death, even homicide in American cities in one day. So thats out the window. Seems like he could have picked a better comparison, doesn’t it?
This is such a childish argument that I can barely believe it didn’t come from Ian or Pedro, instead of Dugger.
Just so I have it straight–because there have been notable instances of massive homicide in some American cities at a point in history–including 9/11–it thereby proves that present-day Baghdad isn’t any less safe than those cities are right now.
This is the same argument that so many conservatives seem to think gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want because “at least it wasn’t as bad as so-and-so.”
Yes, officer, I shot and killed that little old man. But at least I’m not as bad as that guy who shot and killed TWO old men! Ergo, I have done nothing wrong.
Frickin tag typos.
“If you are going to be so immature and vulgar, you should take the time to be at least halfways right.”
Dugger, I’m not halfways right, I’m 100% right, and your mother, wife, sister, and daughter would back me up if only they could get their mouths off my cock for one minute.
“My clearly stated example was the (entire) county.”
Show me the stats, then, Dugger. What’s the county rate?
“I did not refer to rate. You want to construct an example that refers to rate, have at it, but mine did not.”
What point do you believe you are you making, then? And what example have you constructed? All I’ve seen are assertions. Are you comparing absolute numbers? Are you saying there are more than 868 homicides in LA county per year? 868 out of 10 million people? As compared with 868 out of a population of 140,000 military, not counting Iraq’s civilian deaths? That’s your evidence that being a citizen of LA county is more dangerous than being a soldier in Iraq or a citizen of Baghdad? Really? Because I think it’s clear evidence that you’re a fucking retard. Stand by it at your own drooling, howling peril, Dugger.
“I know there have been instances of greater violent death, even homicide in American cities in one day”
Unless you are referring to Sept. 11 or the Revolutionary/War of 1812/Civil War, then I would like to see a cite. Do you have anything from the last 120 years to back up that claim? And how would the existence of such evidence support your deluded claim that Baghdad is in fact, a safe, normal city in which to live?
Yeah. LA in 1992. Are you suggesting that the talking points are misleading?
Why are your tags fucking with my formatting, BD? Do your powers extend outside of the Matrix, too?
Homicides, year to date, for 2006
Los Angeles county: 301 out of appx. 10 million residents
Iraq: 534 out of appx. 140,000 soldiers
Homicides, year total, for 2005
Los Angeles county: 433 out of appx. 10 million residents
U.S. soldiers in Iraq: 846 out of appx. 140,000
Finally, assuming Baghdad has a population of 3.5 million, and that civilians there are being killed at a rate of 1,000 per month (a conservative estimate) you wind up with a murder rate of about 343 per 100,000. Just for comparison, that’s almost 5 times the murder rate of Rio de Janeiro. Cue Scumbag Dugger, belittling and demeaning the deaths of military and Iraqi civilians, blah blah blah.
Tommy, You have shown yourself to be classless vulgar jerk. You lose the debate and you drag in family. Even on the Internet, thats where I draw the line. Maybe its time to change your name again. You show what you are. No more with you.
Aww, Tom, you hurt his feewings again. The fact that your numbers refute his entire claim are absolutely secondary.
Dugger, you’ll be missed, you loathsome reptile, you!
I know there have been instances of greater violent death, even homicide in American cities in one day.
Other than 9-11, when and where?
MJB, Your memory is corrupt.
I’m being serious. I missed it. Feel free to explain. But if you’re analysis is that which has been debunked by others here, then what you said was not “true” it was “false”.
Quaker
OK City.
MJB
I never said Baghdad was safer than LA. I said there were more violent deaths, homicides, in LA County (total) than American deaths in Iraq – same period of time.
“I never said Baghdad was safer than LA.”
That’s absolute bullshit Dugger and you know it.
Your initial claim was that LA County was more dangerous than Iraq. You, of course, were comparing raw numbers rather than homicide rates as a relation of the total homicides to the total population. So your initial claim was utterly specious.
Nevertheless, you insisted no matter how many times I tried to explain to you that the only statistically valid way to compare the relatively safety of two places was to compare rates not raw numbers.
Then, at some point, you simply changed your claim without acknowledging of your previous, much defended error.
Now of course you’re simply denying you ever made the claim.
Typical.
“I said there were more violent deaths, homicides, in LA County (total) than American deaths in Iraq – same period of time.”
The words of a coward! Which period of time? Here are two. Ready to step up to the plate Dugger, and make a claim about what all your nonsense means? Or will you again run for the safety of Fox News, where Iraqi deaths are more lightly sniffed at?
Homicides, year to date, for 2006
Los Angeles county: 301 out of appx. 10 million residents
Iraq: 534 out of appx. 140,000 soldiers
Homicides, year total, for 2005
Los Angeles county: 433 out of appx. 10 million residents
U.S. soldiers in Iraq: 846 out of appx. 140,000
A2Ms, performed on Dugger’s immediate female relatives, performed by me in the past month: 4 out of 7.
Quaker
OK City.
Baghdad is safer than the Murrah building?
Duh!
Dugger, your debate record is horrible lately. You haven’t even scored a point. You still get kudos for not entering the Foley scandal debate though.
Baghdad ain’t even the worst-from “Email from Iraq”:
Worst City in al-Anbar Province – Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Killed over 1,000 insurgents in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude.
and:
Biggest Hassle – High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and “battlefield” tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no affect on their preconceived notions of what’s going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they’ve been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.
Biggest Outrage – Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest offender – Bill O’Reilly – what a buffoon.
http://hqmc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=284&Itemid=30
Quaker
the original exchange
me: “I know there have been instances of greater violent death, even homicide in American cities in one day.”
you: Other than 9-11, when and where?’
This was the dialogue. I gave you a correct answer – OK city. Your response was: “Baghdad is safer than the Murrah building?”
Why not just admit I was correct rather than that little snarky dodge.
frame, look it up.
The comparison was LA County (all) versus iraq. American violent deaths. Same period of time.
I was right and all of this wriggling to move the goal posts won’t work.
The point then and the point now: If progressives are that greatly concerned about the loss of American lives, you would think they would focus on the Democratic-run government entitities of and within LA County – more violent deaths of Americans there than Iraq (same period of time).
“The comparison was LA County (all) versus iraq. American violent deaths. Same period of time.”
What period of time? Not 2005 or 2006, it would appear. And what point do you believe you are making by comparing a very big population’s absolute number of murders to a very small one’s?
For the record, there are 71 times as many Americans in LA county as there are in Iraq.
Ergo, Dugger’s point is that Iraq is 71 times more dangerous than LA county. Thanks for the talking point! I know I’ll be using that one!
“I was right and all of this wriggling to move the goal posts won’t work.”
Dugger when you and I first went at it over this your claim was that Los Angeles County was more dangerous than Iraq. You were dead wrong. You’re the one who moved the goal posts.
Also, Dugger often claims that the death rate under Saddam exceed’s today’s death rate. I’d like to see those numbers, Dugger. And what are you talking about: violent deaths alone? Civilians alone? Or is it just more meaningless, vague generalities from which even you are too cowardly to make a strong claim.
And for the record, I’d be happy to bring the troops home from this failed, fucked up, pointless war and have them policing the streets of LA. Bring it on, Dugger.
Does it strike Dugger as odd that the US never bothered to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths in Iraq, which is why he frequently has to rely on estimates when making his ridiculous claims.
Does Dugger take into account that 1 out of 5 sevicemen returning from Iraq are at least partly disabled? I would have to add to the argument that the residents of Los Angeles county don’t typically wear body armor or travel in armored vehicles.
Good God, midderpidge, are you actually QUESTIONING the premise for Dugger’s arguments? If you question Dugger, you’re questioning The Decider!!!
frame,
But it is more dangerous for Americans (violent deaths). The big heart burn you guys had as I remember it was with rate. Another complaint was limiting the count to US deaths. Another was the relative populations. My comparison, nevertheless, is correct. Take violent deaths, take the same period of time (wars end to last data point, take Americans only, compare entire LA County to Iraq. Democrat-run LA County, as a whole, is more dangerous.
midder,
Did you really say I frequently rely on estimates re deaths in Iraq. You meant that to be a telling criticism, right?
Perhaps, then, you could enlighten everyone as to who keeps the officail, no BS death toll count in Iraq- now, three years ago, 27 years ago. Indeed, please tell me who is not dealing in estimates. Look forward to your factual answer.
That’s pretty funny. Your heart’s really not in this one, is it, Dugger? Go tell a soldier that Iraq’s less dangerous than LA county, I dare you. By your own numbers, an American soldier in Iraq is 71 times more likely to be killed than is a resident of LA county.
Your own numbers.
A better argument that Dugger is insane or an idiot cannot be crafted than the ones he himself has written. Amazing.
“Take violent deaths, take the same period of time (wars end to last data point, take Americans only, compare entire LA County to Iraq. Democrat-run LA County, as a whole, is more dangerous.”
No Dugger, it isn’t and your fucking total moron for repeating this totally false and disproven claim YET AGAIN.
I repeat:
The only statistically valid way to compare the safety of two geographic areas is to compare crime RATES. Rates are a proportion of the number of crimes relative to population.
If you look at the crime rates for the period of 2003-2006 in LA County to Iraq you will find that Iraq is more than 20 times more dangerous.
If you really believe what you’re saying Dugger I will happliy buy and your family a two week round trip ticket to Baghdad for Christmas. There’s just two conditions:
1) You cannot spend anytime in the green zone.
2) You must visit at least one tourist site outside Baghdad without any kind of security.
But since Iraq is so much safer than Los Angeles County that shouldn’t cause you any concern at all. Right?
Just say when and I’ll pay for your flight.
Me? I’ll be spending my Christmas in Los Angeles County where I will have a great meal, take a walk around my neighborhood and maybe catch a movie that evening at one of our many open air shopping malls.
Dugger’s scared to make the case for absolute numbers vs. rates. If he had shame, he would be ashamed, but as it is, he’s just scared.
Then frame, I am happy to let you remain with the notion that even though more Americans died in LA County than Iraq, Iraq is more dangerous for Americans.
(and if you talk ‘rate’, then i insist we talk ‘rate’ of this war verus all other wars).
It’s definitely more dangerous for Americans in Iraq vs. Americans in LA county. That’s simply inarguable.
“Then frame, I am happy to let you remain with the notion that even though more Americans died in LA County than Iraq, Iraq is more dangerous for Americans.”
Then Dugger I’m happy to buy you a ticket to Baghdad anytime you want to get away from it all.
The point still stands: There are 70 times more Americans in Los Angeles Country (10 million) than there are in Iraq (140,000). That’s why Iraq is still 20 plus more times dangerous than Los Angeles County. I know you understand this because you’re no dumb. You are, however, deliberately overlooking this fact in order to attack liberals which is why you are an idiot.
Oh, and Dugger you can compare the casualty rate in Iraq to other wars all you want. It doesn’t make you any less wrong re: your Los Angeles County comparison.
Just for the record, Dugger, given the choice, and only this choice, which place would you rather visit with your family:
Baghdad
or
Los Angeles.
Be honest.
“Then frame, I am happy to let you remain with the notion that even though more Americans died in LA County than Iraq, Iraq is more dangerous for Americans.”
Oh, wait, I’m sorry. Is this what it sounds like when Dugger admits that he’s wrong? What a big boy you are Dugs.
The city of Los Angeles of course. (be careful frame, I give nothing away)
(and if you talk ‘rate’, then i insist we talk ‘rate’ of this war verus all other wars).
No.
“The city of Los Angeles of course.(be careful frame, I give nothing away)”
Ah yes, you’d rather takea family trip to a county more dangerous than all of Iraq. You must think a lot about your family.
“(be careful frame, I give nothing away)”
You’re also an idiot.
“I give nothing away”
If only your mother, wife, sister, daughter, and family dogs practiced the same policy.
“(be careful frame, I give nothing away)”
Oooh, I can’t wait to see what trap the clever dugger will spring!
Well, if you think about it, October 2nd, Bart Township in Lancaster County PA was more dangerous than Baghdad. 6 people were killed there, and only a couple of soldiers were killed. So in duggerworld it is clear that that rural Pennsylvania township is MORE dangerous than Iraq (for American soldiers).
Squealing like stuck pigs. You hate it that the county run almost wholly by Democrats has more violent US fatalities than Iraq.
Maybe if you wish real hard and click your heels three times, the death rate in LA will have gone down. I mean there would be more thought behind that than your foreign policy.
Yawn. You really don’t understand the world, do you Dugger?
“…the death rate in LA will have gone down.”
The “death rate” is HIGHER IN IRAQ!!!!!!!
God you stupid fuck.
71 more times as dangerous for an American soldier in Iraq than a resident of LA County.
Your own numbers.
oh wait, right …
yawn.
Does Dugger actually not know what a rate is? I’m genuinely concerned for his children at this point.
Very concerned.
Latest research (which Bush has said is wrong) says 650k Iraqis dead. Even if it is half this number, it is still twice as much as the US Gov are admitting to….
I’ve scanned some conservative blogs on that report, Bryan, and there’s been no serious conservative response to it. Just various expressions of the belied that it must be false. Bad times for everyone, worst of all for the Iraqis. God have mercy on us for what we helped happen or let happen over there.
Dugger points out a useless statistic and yet again fails to realize that it disproves another one of his favorite talking points. More Americans die in America than they do in Iraq. Therefore the US is less safe than terrorist plagued Iraq and it only highlights how crappy a job Bush has done.
Blah blah. Fact remains more Americans died violent deaths in LA County than Iraq. LA County is run by Democrats?? Simple harmful pigheaded incompetence or dangerous buffoonery??? You decide.
You keep asserting things as fact that others have discredited. Maybe you should post your numbers and actually defend your assertion instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “Stay the Course!”
It’s probably more dangerous in Dugger’s house than anywhere else in the world.
Loyalty.
To.
The.
Decider.
Above.
All.
Else.
I guess Dugger’s finally seen the light — let’s bring the troops home!
I have yet to see the statistic Dugger keeps masturbating over. Here are the ones I found, both of which indicate a higher absolute number of American deaths in Iraq. What’s he talking about, anyway? Can’t he get one fact-based claim in out of all the words he’s used?
Homicides, year to date, for 2006
Los Angeles county: 301 out of appx. 10 million residents
Iraq: 534 out of appx. 140,000 soldiers
Homicides, year total, for 2005
Los Angeles county: 433 out of appx. 10 million residents
U.S. soldiers in Iraq: 846 out of appx. 140,000
Ok Dugger, I give in. In spite of everyone here demonstrating sensibly how that figure you keep repeating doesnt actually mean anything and in fact is used to suggest something that is not the case, which is to say that a warzone exploding in a civil war is not nearly as dangerous as a part of California, you still refuse to concede anything remotely resembling the truth, instead insisting that your twisted wording of statistics that should not be compared to each other vindicate your opinion. Fine, you win. In spite of the fact that your comparison would only be valid if Americans were the only people in Iraq, and the variances in Landmass, population density, demographic makeup, history of violence, nature of the deaths in question, rate of the deaths, and a litany of other differences, yes, the two numbers are comparable, and therefore Iraq is the safest place on earth. Fine. I totally agree with you.
I would like to apologize to you first and foremost Dugger for having been hostile to you in the past for what I viewed as insanity at the time, repeating a comparison of numbers that show no corrolary to prove a point that does not follow the course of logic, but under the weight of your ceaseless might I am now convinced that, even though there is no actual proof that youre talking sense, that you must be because youve repeated it so often.
I would also like to apologize to progressives on the site, who I will now refer to as Liberal-Fascist-Queers, for having been so long one of your number, but Duggers belligerance has forced me to concede his point in spite of actual fact. Do not moun my passing, I go now to a better place, where the world is exactly as I would like to view it, so long as my participation in it is limited to discussion board debate using dugger’s, hereafter referred to as LordAlmighty’s brand of logic. Watch me use it now:
More Americans die in America than have dies in Iraq. Therefore, Iraq is a safer place for Americans to be than America itself is. And if you disagree with this, its only proof of the rampant Bush-hate that all you Liberal-Fascist-Queers have so deep in your hearts. Do you not agree, my LordAlmighty?
“More Americans die in America than have dies in Iraq. Therefore, Iraq is a safer place for Americans to be than America itself is.”
Oh, NOW I get it.
And Dugger, do you remember way back when you told us that Dinesh D’Souza’s publisher couldn’t be trusted to accurately reflect the thesis of his new book in its press release?
You’re an
idiot.
From the book itself:
God you’re an idiot.
Did you know that men who have sex with a prostitute on the streets of Baltimore face a 25% of contracting syphilis? And yet, men who have sex with Dugger’s wife have a 100% of getting it. Funny, isn’t it?
Not reading this whole thread thru, but it’s a safe bet that Dugger’s “math” doesn’t include the 650,000 IRAQIS that have died over there since the war began.
So no, more people did not die in LA county.
What a partisan tool.
Ah, but LordAlmighty Dugger’s claim had nothing to do with Iraqi’s, he was merely stating that more Americans die in LA County than in Iraq, not people in General. Therefore Iraqi civilian deaths dont matter, since Americans are obviously more important then them. Probably has to do with them being brown I suppose, what say you, LordAlmighty Dugger? Why can Iraqi civilian deaths be ingored for the more important truth of the American death total? Why are we more important than thay? Its not that I doubt your reasoning, understand, just that I wish for sufficient reason to silence this gay comminust satan worshipping heretic dog-rapist.
I’m sorry, dugger is away from his desk right now. Presumably sucking the blood from some puppies.
Well put Rex. I forgot those Iraqis were probably brown, and therefore not worth Dugger’s attention. I stand corrected.
More people died from wild pig attacks in Canada than in East Jerkwater, Mississippi.
Therefore, East Jerkwater is the place you want to be.
But seriously, Dugs, how many of those deaths in L.A. county were members of the military?
I bet more soldiers died in Iraq than in L.A. county.
I wouldn’t take your bet Quaker. My point always has been that this site excitedly trumpets the gross death total in Iraq regularly as a political weapon against Bush. I consider that intellectual fraud and pointed out an example that suggests context is called for. Re my LA County example the gaggle here screams for context (rate, all deaths, etc). Fine then. Context the death totals in Iraq also: show that the total and the rate for deaths was higher under Saddam; that the US casualty rate is much, much lower than any other ‘war’ in US history.
Context should go both ways.
Dugger | Oct 13, 2006 8:06:52 AM
“My point always has been that this site excitedly trumpets the gross death total in Iraq regularly as a political weapon against Bush. I consider that intellectual fraud …”
Is the ongoing, strong insurgency that is supposed to be “in its last throes, if you will” considered strategic fraud by the Decider administration?
“the death totals in Iraq also: show that the total and the rate for deaths was higher under Saddam”
If these numbers are so clear, precisely what are they, and what’s their source, Dugger? Otherwise, I assume you’re just copying and pasting a chain email from your black helicopter mailing list.
I enjoy how he ducked the whole ‘Iraqis are getting killed too’ point.
that the US casualty rate is much, much lower than any other ‘war’ in US history.
The quality of good news has fallen off in recent days.
There isn’t a context that mitigates the cost of 2,700 dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans, and uncounted Iraqi casualties.
How does adding “context” diminish the consequences of this misadventure?
But Quaker, you make an argument, do you not, from a position that any casualty is one too many.
And you do not feel that peace in the Mideast (as the Neocons envison), saving the Jewish state and the saving of three times as many lives as are being lost now doesn’t even mitigate the circuumstances some? I mean you might still disagree – these don’t even mitigate?
And you do not feel that peace in the Mideast (as the Neocons envison), saving the Jewish state and the saving of three times as many lives as are being lost now doesn’t even mitigate the circuumstances some?
There’s no indication that the cost in casualties will produce the desired result. As you succinctly put it in a different thread, “Who knows?”
“the saving of three times as many lives”
Dugger’s really scared to actually put up his numbers. What are you hiding, Dugger?
There’s no indication that the cost in casualties will produce the desired result. As you succinctly put it in a different thread, “Who knows?”
Truly, I don’t know. But do I understand you to say the casualties would be OK if they produced the desired result? I was thinking, maybe wrongly, you were against any war or certainly any preemptive war.
You keep failing to post those year by year numbers Dugger. Are you intentionally trying to mislead us about them?
I have to agree with dugger. I’ve been arguing this point since people started whining about number of troops killed during War in Iraq.
The service men/women in Iraq volunteered to PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. I have family members serving US in this War. It is a necessary evil.
The deaths and violence suffered on our American Streets are sensless actc serving only the interests of criminals usually due to the violence associated with drugs. War casualities do NOT affect my SOUL the way the disgusting culture of our very own neighborhoods here in the US do. If we as a country got as fired-up over these homocides–as we do casualties of war…maybe the violence would decrease.