Immediate Withdrawal

According to icasualties.org/oif/ there have been 88 hostile fire deaths
caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder
of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents.

What does this mean?

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater
during the last 22 months that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are much more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

The conclusion?

We should immediately pull out of WASHINGTON, DC.

:laugh:

Doesn't Wash. DC also have the highest crime rate?

Comparing these numbers is like comparing grapes and cinder blocks. A similar attempt at this was made at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq and it was just as silly then as now. What I do find funny is that there is very little original or non-regurgitated info or tactics that come from your side. It's pitiful really. :laugh:

Originally Posted by pechuna According to icasualties.org/oif/ there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents. What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are much more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. The conclusion? We should immediately pull out of WASHINGTON, DC.

The State of California falls into the same category as well :)

Originally Posted by pechuna According to icasualties.org/oif/ there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents. What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are much more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. The conclusion? We should immediately pull out of WASHINGTON, DC.

It says....we are doing such a great job with violence in our own country...lets go share our wisdom about how to reduce violence with other countries. :rolleyes:

We do not have our own house in order...and we want to go clean up another country's?

That is what I got from this post.

Originally Posted by mommamia It says....we are doing such a great job with violence in our own country...lets go share our wisdom about how to reduce violence with other countries. :rolleyes: We do not have our own house in order...and we want to go clean up another country's? That is what I got from this post.

Right on, Momma! We have no money for schools, border patrol, health care, social security, police, fire, yet we have all this money to rebuild Iraq.

Maybe if we're attacked, the attacking country will give us all these things.

Originally Posted by mommamia We do not have our own house in order...and we want to go clean up another country's?

Absolutely what I want to know.

Originally Posted by pechuna According to icasualties.org/oif/ there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents. What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are much more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. The conclusion? We should immediately pull out of WASHINGTON, DC.

The firearm death rate in Iraq is much higher than 60 per 100,000. You are specifying the death rate of American troops. Since the total death rate in Washington D.C. is lower, following your logic we should pull troops out of Iraq and send them to D.C., where they'll be safer.

Originally Posted by dandylin Comparing these numbers is like comparing grapes and cinder blocks. A similar attempt at this was made at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq and it was just as silly then as now. What I do find funny is that there is very little original or non-regurgitated info or tactics that come from your side. It's pitiful really. :laugh:

Wow! You finally find a statistic pitiful! Too bad it's not one of those made up voter fraud ones.

pechuna, using your illogic, Bin Laden hadn't caused anyone to die by gunfire, therefore we had no reason to invade Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by STRIKEHOLD Wow! You finally find a statistic pitiful! Too bad it's not one of those made up voter fraud ones.

No the comparison pitiful. Numbers don't hurt, only the people wielding the numbers and their pitiful attempt at a comparison that should never have been made :laugh:

Originally Posted by dandylin No the comparison pitiful. Numbers don't hurt, only the people wielding the numbers and their pitiful attempt at a comparison that should never have been made :laugh:

Oh thank goodness!. After reading the thread title and seeing who posted it- i was afraid to come in here. What a relief to find just sarcasm.

Originally Posted by marilyn lux Oh thank goodness!. After reading the thread title and seeing who posted it- i was afraid to come in here. What a relief to find just sarcasm.

:laugh:

Originally Posted by dandylin No the comparison pitiful. Numbers don't hurt, only the people wielding the numbers and their pitiful attempt at a comparison that should never have been made :laugh:

Does the comparison scare you? Why can't someone make comparison. It's dangerous in Iraq but compared to WWII, Korea, Vietnam it is much less so. It might even be less dangerous then some hoods in L.A. . Drive into the Rampart section of L.A. and you might be in more danger then a Suni section of Baghdad.

Originally Posted by STRIKEHOLD Drive into the Rampart section of L.A. and you might be in more danger then a Suni section of Baghdad.

are you saying then there is no democracy in "the rampart section of l.a."...... quick, let's get our troops there.

c'mon strikehold...... apples and oranges.