IRAQ VIOLENT DEATH RATE LOWER THAN U.S. CITIES!!

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 5:26:30 AM1/5/07

to

Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
population are:

1. Washington, DC - 1991; 83.1 (482 murders; population 598,000
2. Gary, IN - 2005; 58.0
3. Detroit, MI - 1991; roughly 60
4. Compton, CA - 2005; 67.1
5. New Orleans, LA - 2006; 67.5 (154 murders; population 228,000
6. New Orleans, LA - 2004; 59.6 (275 murders; population 461,115
7. New Orleans, LA - 2003; 57.7
8. Atlanta, GA - 1973; 57.7 (271 murders; population 470,000
9. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004; 63.4

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) 1/2/07 - Government officials reported that 16,273
Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a
figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year
by more than 2,500."

za...@construction-imaging.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:22:13 AM1/5/07

to

OK, why not take your next vacation in Baghdad and take a walk by
yourself around the city?

Hawkster

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:56:48 AM1/5/07

to

za...@construction-imaging.com wrote in
news:1168003333.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Since thinking makes Jak's headbone hurt, he constantly re-cycles the
same threadbare arguments. Here's my reply to his May 2006 version:

Since Jak neglected to give a cite for his fascinating information,
here's a link:

http://tinyurl.com/gkg4e

It's from a column by Alicia Colon of "The New York Sun". For all
those who wanna cheat, here's the closing paragraph:

"The reality is that the Iraqi people and the coalition forces are
winning the battle to rid the country of the murderous
Islamofascists. In a few years, tourists will be flocking to Iraq,
site of the most famous ancient city, Babylon, and other cultural
treasures. That's the truth - believe it or not."

Yup, it's 2006 and Alicia can still crank out fairy tales like this
one -- believe it or not. No wonder she quotes Steve King.

Hawkster

nJb

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 11:48:00 AM1/5/07

to

Now, put those 16,273 deaths in 2 or 3 US cities, like the case in Iraq,
and run those figures. Doesn't look so good now, does it, you brain dead
fascist drone.

Jack

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 12:41:24 PM1/5/07

to

JakTheHammer wrote:
> Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
> 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
> 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
> SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
> Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
> population are:

This is an invalid comparison. You compare cities of comparable size,
not cities to whole countries.

Baldin Lee Pramer

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:09:28 PM1/5/07

to

What does any of this have to do with the raw numbers that Jak provided?
Is it true that the murder rate in Iraq as a whole is lower than that of
seven major US cities? If the number of violent killings in Iraq is
16,273 a year, where are the 650K numbers coming from that Liberals keep
attributing to Bush?

--
"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:10:57 PM1/5/07

to

There's no doubt that certain parts of Iraq are more dangerous than any
American city as a whole. But that's not the point. There's a war going
on in Iraq and the number killed are at rates lower than seven major US
cities?

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:12:00 PM1/5/07

to

The fact you can compare cities to a country at war and end up with the
cities not at war having higher violent death rates is suggestive of
something important, I think.

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:58:07 PM1/5/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > JakTheHammer wrote:
> > > Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
> > > 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
> > > 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
> > > SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
> > > Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
> > > population are:
> >
> > This is an invalid comparison. You compare cities of comparable size,
> > not cities to whole countries.
> >
> The fact you can compare cities to a country at war and end up with the
> cities not at war having higher violent death rates is suggestive of
> something important, I think.

Yes, it does: that you don't know how to do statistics. Compare the
violent deaths in Baghdad, where most of the fighting is taking place,
with that of, say, Miami. Then you have a valid comparison.

Baldin Lee Pramer

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:00:46 PM1/5/07

to

Another way to look at is 46,000+ more people a year in Iraq would be
alive today if it wasn't for the village idiot and mass murderer Bush
starting a unnecessry war.

3,900 a month x 12 months = 46,800 deaths a year based on recent UN
figures.

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:01:39 PM1/5/07

to

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:12:00 -0800, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> JakTheHammer wrote:
>> > Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
>> > 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
>> > 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
>> > SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
>> > Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
>> > population are:
>>
>> This is an invalid comparison. You compare cities of comparable size,
>> not cities to whole countries.
>>
>The fact you can compare cities to a country at war and end up with the
>cities not at war having higher violent death rates is suggestive of
>something important, I think.

Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:25:15 PM1/5/07

to

Adam HalfWit wrote:
>
> Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.

But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
a Population............Dork..........

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:44:45 PM1/5/07

to

Comparing deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 100,000 in a city vs
averaged over a whole country is idiotic. The dynamics of a city are
different from the dynamics of small towns.

BLP

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 4:08:15 PM1/5/07

to

ONLY because you DON'T like the Results, Moron...........

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 4:16:14 PM1/5/07

to

But according to the Hysterical Democrats, ALL OF IRAQ is "Violent and
Dangerous".......Iraq is supposed to be "Totally Enveloped In A CIVIL
WAR", remember?........So therefore it is a VERY VALID
comparison............

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:19:42 PM1/5/07

to

But it's a war. I know there are violent deaths in a war zone. The point
though is to look at the entire country. If most of the country is
mostly peaceful, then that's better than it's being represented.

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:21:28 PM1/5/07

to

The point is that a comparison can be in fact made. Are you too afraid
to walk around Miami? It's less dangerous, on average, in Iraq than in
Miami. That's what the numbers are saying.

Matt

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:32:46 PM1/5/07

to

Ah, the joys of cherry picking data. Let's actually look at some real
numbers, shall we?

The first authoritative, and still constantly-updated, estimate of
war-related deaths in Iraq was compiled by Iraq Body Count (IBC). In
July 2005, IBC issued a dense, readable analysis of recorded civilian
deaths due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq from March 2003 to
March 2005. Careful and conservative work by IBC principal researchers
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, Kay Williams and Peter Bagnall, showed
that there had been 24,865 civilian war-related deaths, almost all of
them as a direct result of violence, reported between 20 March 2003 and
19 March 2005.

In order to provide irrefutable, minimum figures for the death toll,
IBC only records civilian deaths which have been reported by two
reputable English-language sources.

IBC observed in its June 2005 report: 'The population of Iraq is
approximately 25,000,000, meaning that one in every thousand Iraqis has
been violently killed since March 2003.'

Hm. One in every thousand is 100 per 100,000 or considerably higher
than EVERY number you cite.

Now, what was your point again?

Matt

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:38:18 PM1/5/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > theloner...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Adam HalfWit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
> > > DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
> > > a Population............Dork..........
> >
> > Comparing deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 100,000 in a city vs
> > averaged over a whole country is idiotic. The dynamics of a city are
> > different from the dynamics of small towns.
> >
> The point is that a comparison can be in fact made. Are you too afraid
> to walk around Miami? It's less dangerous, on average, in Iraq than in
> Miami. That's what the numbers are saying.

Really. Those averages will kill you every time.

Out of curiousity, Bill, how many murders did you read about in Miami
yesterday "on average"?

Throughout Iraq on Friday, at least 31 people died violently or were
found dead, including two beheaded victims of the sectarian slaughter
found floating in the Tigris river.

Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
will have something to talk about.

Matt

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:11:36 PM1/5/07

to

JakTheHammer wrote:

> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> > Compare the
> > violent deaths in Baghdad, where most of the fighting is taking place,
> > with that of, say, Miami. Then you have a valid comparison.
>
> But according to the Hysterical Democrats, ALL OF IRAQ is "Violent and
> Dangerous".

They're wrong. That does not mean that you have to go along and be
wrong too.

Baldin Lee Pramer

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:13:02 PM1/5/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JakTheHammer wrote:
> > > > > Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
> > > > > 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
> > > > > 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
> > > > > SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
> > > > > Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
> > > > > population are:
> > > >
> > > > This is an invalid comparison. You compare cities of comparable size,
> > > > not cities to whole countries.
> > > >
> > > The fact you can compare cities to a country at war and end up with the
> > > cities not at war having higher violent death rates is suggestive of
> > > something important, I think.
> >
> > Yes, it does: that you don't know how to do statistics. Compare the
> > violent deaths in Baghdad, where most of the fighting is taking place,
> > with that of, say, Miami. Then you have a valid comparison.
> >
> But it's a war. I know there are violent deaths in a war zone. The point
> though is to look at the entire country. If most of the country is
> mostly peaceful, then that's better than it's being represented.

The majority of the country is more peaceful than Baghdad. That doesn't
change my point.

Baldin Lee Pramer

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:14:55 PM1/5/07

to

Bullshit. I never distort statistics to make a phony point.

BLP

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:14:50 PM1/5/07

to

Given that the average level is more peaceful than Miami, that should
mean that most of Iraq is acceptably peaceful, at least by Miami
standards. Think about how violent it is in Baghdad and consider how
much more peace the rest of the places have to be to make up for it.

Baldin...@msn.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:17:25 PM1/5/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > theloner...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Adam HalfWit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
> > > DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
> > > a Population............Dork..........
> >
> > Comparing deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 100,000 in a city vs
> > averaged over a whole country is idiotic. The dynamics of a city are
> > different from the dynamics of small towns.
> >
> The point is that a comparison can be in fact made. Are you too afraid
> to walk around Miami? It's less dangerous, on average, in Iraq than in
> Miami. That's what the numbers are saying.

You don't "walk around" in Iraq unless you have business all over the
country. I would rather walk around in Miami than Baghdad, and so would
most people. Baghdad is more dangerous, period.

Baldin Lee Pramer

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:14:53 PM1/5/07

to

So when are you moving to Iraq to live in the peaceful countryside?

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:19:20 PM1/5/07

to

Matt wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> > >
> > > theloner...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > Adam HalfWit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.
> > > >
> > > > But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
> > > > DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
> > > > a Population............Dork..........
> > >
> > > Comparing deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 100,000 in a city vs
> > > averaged over a whole country is idiotic. The dynamics of a city are
> > > different from the dynamics of small towns.
> > >
> > The point is that a comparison can be in fact made. Are you too afraid
> > to walk around Miami? It's less dangerous, on average, in Iraq than in
> > Miami. That's what the numbers are saying.
>
> Really. Those averages will kill you every time.
>
> Out of curiousity, Bill, how many murders did you read about in Miami
> yesterday "on average"?
>
> Throughout Iraq on Friday, at least 31 people died violently or were
> found dead, including two beheaded victims of the sectarian slaughter
> found floating in the Tigris river.
>

One of the reasons things are worse in Iraq, at least Baghdad, than in
Miami is that most murders in Miami are between criminals, are generally
not random. So if you aren't selling drugs on a street corner, your odds
of getting murdered go down. Not to zero, but down. In Baghdad you could
get murdered for selling Christmas trees on a street corner.

> Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> will have something to talk about.
>

There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
statistics.

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:16:03 PM1/5/07

to

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:21:28 -0800, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> theloner...@aol.com wrote:
>> > Adam HalfWit wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Only right wing clowns are stupid enough to mix apples and oranges.
>> >
>> > But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
>> > DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
>> > a Population............Dork..........
>>
>> Comparing deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 100,000 in a city vs
>> averaged over a whole country is idiotic. The dynamics of a city are
>> different from the dynamics of small towns.
>>
>The point is that a comparison can be in fact made. Are you too afraid
>to walk around Miami? It's less dangerous, on average, in Iraq than in
>Miami. That's what the numbers are saying.

Numbers can be made to appear to represent anything. Shame you have to
be intelligent to understand that. You are hopeless.

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:17:25 PM1/5/07

to

You never make any points. What you're saying is you'll bite into a
magot infested apple because you'll just nibble around the bad parts.
Sure, right, of course you will.

The Real Diddy Pop

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:23:43 PM1/5/07

to

za...@construction-imaging.com wrote:
> OK, why not take your next vacation in Baghdad and take a walk by
> yourself around the city?

Why don't you take your next vacation in Newark, Detroit, Compton, NO,
or Houston and take a walk around the ghetto. Tell me how it goes.

Matt

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:48:07 PM1/5/07

to

Imagine that. So, what you are saying is that Miami is safer than
Baghdad?

>
>
> > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > will have something to talk about.
> >
> There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> statistics.

But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
BEFORE...

Matt

fiend999

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:51:05 PM1/5/07

to

In article <459E94B1...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

It is exactly the point, if you want to compare apples to apples.

--
~~~

Stephen Jay Morris

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:53:21 PM1/5/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JakTheHammer wrote:
> > > > > Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
> > > > > 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
> > > > > 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
> > > > > SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
> > > > > Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
> > > > > population are:
> > > >
> > > > This is an invalid comparison. You compare cities of comparable size,
> > > > not cities to whole countries.
> > > >
> > > The fact you can compare cities to a country at war and end up with the
> > > cities not at war having higher violent death rates is suggestive of
> > > something important, I think.
> >
> > Yes, it does: that you don't know how to do statistics. Compare the
> > violent deaths in Baghdad, where most of the fighting is taking place,
> > with that of, say, Miami. Then you have a valid comparison.
> >
> But it's a war. I know there are violent deaths in a war zone. The point
> though is to look at the entire country. If most of the country is
> mostly peaceful, then that's better than it's being represented.

EXACTLY, Bill........

who...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:02:34 PM1/5/07

to

nJb wrote:
> Now, put those 16,273 deaths in 2 or 3 US cities, like the case in Iraq,
> and run those figures. Doesn't look so good now, does it, you brain dead
> fascist drone.

Irrelevant...if you had half a brain you'd know that. The death rate
and locations have nothing to do with each other. All of Iraq lives in
a fairly condensed area.

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 1:28:00 AM1/6/07

to

We know that. What is interesting is apparently Miami is more dangerous
than Iraq, on average.

> >
> >
> > > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > > will have something to talk about.
> > >
> > There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> > statistics.
>
> But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
> BEFORE...
>

I didn't compare them while ignoring the different populations.

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 1:28:59 AM1/6/07

to

Are you stipulating that Iraq on average is less dangerous than Miami?
Because that's amazing if true.

Clave

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 1:34:01 AM1/6/07

to

"Bill Bonde" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:459F4170...@yahoo.co.uk...

<...>

> What is interesting is apparently Miami is more dangerous
> than Iraq, on average.

Interesting to those who a) are interested in minimizing the cost of the
Iraq war in terms of dead American kids, and b) have no shame about
cherry-picking and misrepresenting statistics to support their craven
disregard for human life.

Jim

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 5:49:08 AM1/6/07

to

Clave wrote:
> "Bill Bonde" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:459F4170...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
> <...>
>
> > What is interesting is apparently Miami is more dangerous
> > than Iraq, on average.
>
> Interesting to those who a) are interested in minimizing the cost of the
> Iraq war in terms of dead American kids,

Which is Exactly NO ONE, Poopsie............You CAN'T Name Anyone Who
DOES, Either.........

and b) have no shame about
> cherry-picking and misrepresenting statistics to support their craven
> disregard for human life.

Again, Which is Exactly NO ONE, DipShit.........You CAN'T Name Anyone
that DOES, Either.........You better Throw Away those Leftist "Talking
Points" Poopsie...........They're BULLSHIT...........

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 9:11:28 AM1/6/07

to

You always talk through your ass. Please tell us the last time a car
was blown up by a IED in Miama =====>

fiend999

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 9:42:15 AM1/6/07

to

In article <459F41AB...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I said nothing of the sort. Nothing about Miami at all and definitely
didn't say anything about Iraq being safe. Why do you insist on
pretending other people said something other than what they actually
said? Is that some kind of mental disorder or just a defense mechanism
that you use when you have put your foot in your mouth again?

The point is this - if you are going to talk about per capita death
rates in a country, compare it to per capita death rates in another
country - not cherry picked data from different cities in different
years. For example, compare the numbers for all of the US in 2006 to
the numbers for all of Iraq in the same time period. If you want to
talk about cites go ahead, but compare cities to cities. Compare
Baghdad to DC during the last year for example.

--
~~~

Matt

unread,

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 6:48:51 PM1/6/07

to

I guess you never saw that show with Tubbs and Crockett.

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 6:51:42 PM1/6/07

to

Don't you know what average means?

> Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> So, to
> compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> Zimbabwe?
>

Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > > > > will have something to talk about.
> > > > >
> > > > There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> > > > statistics.
> > >
> > > But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
> > > BEFORE...
> > >
> > I didn't compare them while ignoring the different populations.
>
> Yet you claim Miami is more dangerous than Iraq.
>
> By the way, Miami is much safer for troops than Iraq is. We should move
> all
> the troops to Miami.
>

For a like R&R with Janet Reno on Palm Bitch?

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 6:51:55 PM1/6/07

to

Don't you know what average means?

> Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> So, to
> compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> Zimbabwe?
>

Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >

> > > > > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > > > > will have something to talk about.
> > > > >
> > > > There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> > > > statistics.
> > >
> > > But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
> > > BEFORE...
> > >
> > I didn't compare them while ignoring the different populations.
>
> Yet you claim Miami is more dangerous than Iraq.
>
> By the way, Miami is much safer for troops than Iraq is. We should move
> all
> the troops to Miami.
>

For a little R&R with Janet Reno?

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 7:25:04 PM1/6/07

to

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:48:51 -0800, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

No wonder you're always so fucked up. You keep confusing fantasy with
reality.

Matt

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 8:00:22 PM1/6/07

to

On average is not a statistical term, Bill. My degree is in math. You
want
to talk statistics, by all means, lets.

>
>
> > Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> > So, to
> > compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> > Zimbabwe?
> >
> Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
> in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.

Apparently being the keyword. But, still, you didn't compare Miami to
Zimbabwe, or Lebanon. Why is that?

There is no "average violence" in Iraq, its a disaster. There is no
law, no
counting of bodies that can be trusted, no police. Miami, on the other
hand, has a stable environment.

Oh, as a side note, if you wish to figure averages, look at very small
towns in Colorado. I think you'll find that "on average" they have a
MUCH
higher violence rate than Iraq too.

Matt

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 8:33:40 PM1/6/07

to

So do you know what average means?

> > > Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> > > So, to
> > > compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> > > Zimbabwe?
> > >
> > Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
> > in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.
>
> Apparently being the keyword. But, still, you didn't compare Miami to
> Zimbabwe, or Lebanon. Why is that?
>

Because we are discussing Iraq.

> There is no "average violence" in Iraq, its a disaster. There is no
> law, no
> counting of bodies that can be trusted, no police. Miami, on the other
> hand, has a stable environment.
>

Yet on average Miami is more violent than Iraq.

> Oh, as a side note, if you wish to figure averages, look at very small
> towns in Colorado. I think you'll find that "on average" they have a
> MUCH
> higher violence rate than Iraq too.
>

Really?

fiend999

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 10:21:15 PM1/6/07

to

In article <45A0149D...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

And I answered it. I said no, I wasn't stipulating any such thing.

> So you aren't yet willing to stipulate
> that about Miami? How about Washington DC?

Why would I do that? I am not willing to compare apples and oranges
like you are. If you'd like to compare per capita violent death rate
of any US city to that of Baghdad in the same time period, then go
right ahead.

>
>
>
> > The point is this - if you are going to talk about per capita death
> > rates in a country, compare it to per capita death rates in another
> > country - not cherry picked data from different cities in different
> > years.
> >
> Well, but that "point" has been shown groundless several times now.

Only in your messed up little mind.

>
>
> > For example, compare the numbers for all of the US in 2006 to
> > the numbers for all of Iraq in the same time period. If you want to
> > talk about cites go ahead, but compare cities to cities. Compare
> > Baghdad to DC during the last year for example.
> >
> There isn't a war in the US. If there is more violence in any city in
> the US than the average is in Iraq, that suggests that Iraq isn't as bad
> as it's being portrayed. Of course we know that Baghdad is where most of
> the violence has been centred, and we know that no US city is as violent
> as Baghdad is today.

No shit. That is what happens when you make valid comparisons. If you
try to compare an entire country to a city, you are not making a valid
comparison since you leave out vast areas of the country which have no
serious violence occurring regularly. If you include those parts of
one country in your comparison, why not include them in the others.
Compare US (entire country) to Iraq, or compare similar cities in each
country. Mixing and matching your data to suit y our weak argument is
dishonest, but that wouldn't be new for you I suppose.

--
~~~

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 10:33:32 PM1/6/07

to

Which is EXACTLY the Point..........Vast Areas of Iraq are Experiencing
NO VIOLENCE........And that's NOT the Impression the News is giving
America...........So all this "Talk" about "Civil War" and "Iraq
Disaster" is BULLSHIT............

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 10:00:18 AM1/7/07

to

On 7 Jan 2007 02:12:12 -0800, "theloner...@aol.com"
<theloner...@aol.com> wrote:

Of the 300,000,000 Americans that go about their daily lives without
murdering anyone or robbing anyone or raping or stealing never gets on
tv either you stupid blithering baboon. Why? Its not news you damn
dumb asswipe fuckwit.

Matt

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 1:50:29 PM1/7/07

to

Bill has some serious problems, math being one of them.

Matt

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 5:39:19 PM1/7/07

to

Sadly, I do.

Bill, if I have 12 oranges, and 8 apples, what is the average number of
people
on California highways on a Tuesday?

>
>
> > Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> > So, to
> > compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> > Zimbabwe?
> >
> Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
> in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.

There is no such thing as "average violence". Why don't you define it
and we'll discuss it.

> > > > > > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > > > > > will have something to talk about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> > > > > statistics.
> > > >
> > > > But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
> > > > BEFORE...
> > > >
> > > I didn't compare them while ignoring the different populations.
> >
> > Yet you claim Miami is more dangerous than Iraq.
> >
> > By the way, Miami is much safer for troops than Iraq is. We should move
> > all
> > the troops to Miami.
> >
> For a little R&R with Janet Reno?

No, to be safer.

Matt

Jerry Kraus

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:09:41 PM1/7/07

to

JakTheHammer wrote:
> Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006 was
> 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a population of
> 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of "Landmark"........There are
> SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER Violent Death Totals than that
> Total for Iraq.........Those Cities and Violent Death Rates per 100,000
> population are:
>
> 1. Washington, DC - 1991; 83.1 (482 murders; population 598,000
> 2. Gary, IN - 2005; 58.0
> 3. Detroit, MI - 1991; roughly 60
> 4. Compton, CA - 2005; 67.1
> 5. New Orleans, LA - 2006; 67.5 (154 murders; population 228,000
> 6. New Orleans, LA - 2004; 59.6 (275 murders; population 461,115
> 7. New Orleans, LA - 2003; 57.7
> 8. Atlanta, GA - 1973; 57.7 (271 murders; population 470,000
> 9. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004; 63.4
>
> "BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) 1/2/07 - Government officials reported that 16,273
> Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a
> figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year
> by more than 2,500."

Send your kids to public school there. They'll be safe.

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:20:20 PM1/7/07

to

No, it's called "Biased News", Moron.........There are PLENTY of the
SAME TYPE of Success Stories in Iraq that are Reported On EVERY DAY in
the News about U.S. Events.........It's just that the Leftist Media
goes Out Of Their Way to AVOID reporting those Stories..........The
OBVIOUS Direction is to make Americans think that Iraq has Nothing Good
going on in it.........And that's just FALSE..........

tsha...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:22:28 PM1/7/07

to

Ranger --

> But it's NOT "Apples and Oranges", you Half-Witted Moron.........It's
> DEATHS PER 100,000 of the Population compared to Deaths Per 100,000 of
> a Population............Dork..........

Spoken like a good Christian ... "oh, yeah, well ... more COULD have
died."

Classy.

PGK

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:32:09 PM1/7/07

to

FACTS Kick Your Mizerable Leftist Ass EVERY TIME,
Dork...........Heehee.........

tsha...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:32:10 PM1/7/07

to

Jak --

> But according to the Hysterical Democrats, ALL OF IRAQ is "Violent and
> Dangerous".......Iraq is supposed to be "Totally Enveloped In A CIVIL
> WAR", remember?........So therefore it is a VERY VALID
> comparison............

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

I might agree with you if you if you'd tell me/us where you are
reading this stuff.

Your post above, Jak, is obviously an opinion. That's fine.

When you drop stuff like "according to" and "supposed to be," though,
you're treading on back- this-up territory.

According to you, I'm an hysterical Democrat. Tell me what I think.

PGK

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:30:44 PM1/7/07

to

Apparently you don't.

> > > Miami is not the size of Iraq, nor does it have the population of Iraq.
> > > So, to
> > > compare apples and oranges, why don't we compare Miami to, say,
> > > Zimbabwe?
> > >
> > Miami is not a war zone either. The point is that the average violence
> > in a war zone, Iraq, is apparently less than Miami.
>
> There is no such thing as "average violence". Why don't you define it
> and we'll discuss it.
>

Average violence as in the rate of murder per 100,000 people. That's
what we were talking about. We were looking at different areas and
comparing the murder rates. That's reasonable to do.

> > > > > > > Now, let's see you find 31 people who died violently in Miami and we
> > > > > > > will have something to talk about.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > There aren't 23 million people in Miami. I know it's difficult, but it's
> > > > > > statistics.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Bill, you had no problem comparing the individual cities to Iraq
> > > > > BEFORE...
> > > > >
> > > > I didn't compare them while ignoring the different populations.
> > >
> > > Yet you claim Miami is more dangerous than Iraq.
> > >
> > > By the way, Miami is much safer for troops than Iraq is. We should move
> > > all
> > > the troops to Miami.
> > >
> > For a little R&R with Janet Reno?
>
> No, to be safer.
>

It very well could be safer for the Marines to be in Florida than Iraq.
That's not under discussion, however.

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:33:04 PM1/7/07

to

No one is taking a tiny area and comparing it to another much larger
area to try to skew the result. Miami and Iraq are both big enough that
you can't make claims like "The murder rate doubled last year" when
there was one murder the previous year and two the next.

>
> Bill has some serious problems, math being one of them.
>

How dare anyone disagree with maths Matt. Would it be OK to compare
Singapore to China?

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:37:54 PM1/7/07

to

This is the "if it bleeds, it leads" news philosophy. I'm not sure it's
the best way to go since it confuses people into thinking that there is
more violence than there really is.

> Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things happening
> in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
>

There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.

tsha...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:43:58 PM1/7/07

to

Jak --

> But according to the Hysterical Democrats, ALL OF IRAQ is "Violent and
> Dangerous".......Iraq is supposed to be "Totally Enveloped In A CIVIL
> WAR", remember?........So therefore it is a VERY VALID
> comparison............

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

I might agree with you if you'd tell me/us where you are reading this
stuff.

Your post above, Jak, is obviously an opinion. That's fine.

When you drop stuff like "according to" and "supposed to be," though,

you're treading on back-this-up territory.

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 6:50:09 PM1/7/07

to

tsha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jak --
>
> > But according to the Hysterical Democrats, ALL OF IRAQ is "Violent and
> > Dangerous".......Iraq is supposed to be "Totally Enveloped In A CIVIL
> > WAR", remember?........So therefore it is a VERY VALID
> > comparison............
>
> Where the fuck are you getting your information?

On the "Civil War" and "Violent & Dangerous" from the Media and the
Democrats themselves..........Doncha R-E-A-D?.............

robw

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 8:09:56 PM1/7/07

to

No, it isn't. Which is rather sad.

Matt

JakTheHammer

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 8:45:46 PM1/7/07

to

Matt wrote:
>
> Really. So what is "murder" defined as, in Iraq? Are the 3000 soldiers
> killed there "murdered"? Are the 16,000 Iraqis that are COUNTED by the
> government murdered? What about the ones that aren't "officially"
> counted?

The Original Term was "Violent Deaths", Matt..........Have your Mommy
explain it to you............

Matt

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 9:07:05 PM1/7/07

to

Where's your name and address, traitor? Why do you hide behind a
pseudonym?
Apparently, you are a terrorist.

Matt

robw

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 9:42:01 PM1/7/07

to

The numbers are still against you.

"JakTheHammer" <ScreenR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168220746....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

robw

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 9:43:33 PM1/7/07

to

Cool.

Please have your president continue to go against the wishes of America.

I guess neither of you learned anything in 2006.

Cool.

"Stephen Jay Morris" <JakDe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168218960.3...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

fiend999

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 8:41:13 AM1/8/07

to

In article <1168212020.6...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"theloner...@aol.com"> wrote:

Really? How about a few examples of Iraq success stories?

--
~~~

fiend999

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 8:46:01 AM1/8/07

to

In article <45A18452...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Well get used to it - it has been that way for decades. Claiming that
it is because "liberals" are trying to make Iraq look bad is just
ridiculous.

>
>
>
> > Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> > unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things happening
> > in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
> >
> There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
> million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
> capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.

What a load of crap. Per capita does NOT adjust for the "type" of
location (rural, urban, etc). That makes a huge difference.
Otherwise, you could add up a bunch of small US towns until you hit 6
million and use that as your comparison against Baghdad. Why wouldn't
you want to do that?

--
~~~

Hawkster

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 10:20:02 PM1/8/07

to

Bill Bonde <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:459E9458...@yahoo.co.uk:

> Hawkster wrote:

>> za...@construction-imaging.com wrote in
>> news:1168003333.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> > JakTheHammer wrote:
>> >> Yup........The AP reported that Iraq's Violent Death Rate for 2006
>> >> was 56.49 per 100,000 Residents, based on 16,273 deaths for a
>> >> population of 28,807,000 and that it was some kind of
>> >> "Landmark"........There are SEVEN U.S. Cities that have had HIGHER
>> >> Violent Death Totals than that Total for Iraq.........Those Cities
>> >> and Violent Death Rates per 100,000 population are:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Washington, DC - 1991; 83.1 (482 murders; population 598,000
>> >> 2. Gary, IN - 2005; 58.0
>> >> 3. Detroit, MI - 1991; roughly 60
>> >> 4. Compton, CA - 2005; 67.1
>> >> 5. New Orleans, LA - 2006; 67.5 (154 murders; population 228,000
>> >> 6. New Orleans, LA - 2004; 59.6 (275 murders; population 461,115
>> >> 7. New Orleans, LA - 2003; 57.7
>> >> 8. Atlanta, GA - 1973; 57.7 (271 murders; population 470,000
>> >> 9. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004; 63.4
>> >>
>> >> "BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) 1/2/07 - Government officials reported that
>> >> 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in
>> >> 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count
>> >> for the year by more than 2,500."

>> > OK, why not take your next vacation in Baghdad and take a walk by
>> > yourself around the city?

>> Since thinking makes Jak's headbone hurt, he constantly re-cycles the
>> same threadbare arguments. Here's my reply to his May 2006 version:

>> Since Jak neglected to give a cite for his fascinating
>> information, here's a link:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/gkg4e
>>
>> It's from a column by Alicia Colon of "The New York Sun".
>> For all those who wanna cheat, here's the closing paragraph:
>>
>> "The reality is that the Iraqi people and the coalition
>> forces are winning the battle to rid the country of the
>> murderous Islamofascists. In a few years, tourists will be
>> flocking to Iraq, site of the most famous ancient city,
>> Babylon, and other cultural treasures. That's the truth -
>> believe it or not."
>>
>> Yup, it's 2006 and Alicia can still crank out fairy tales
>> like this one -- believe it or not. No wonder she quotes
>> Steve King.

> What does any of this have to do with the raw numbers that Jak
> provided?

If you read the article, why ask the question?

Lessee, maybe you have no clue about our boy Steve King? OK, here's more
of my reply from May 2006, when Jak used Ol' Stevie as his lauching pad
for this sophistry:

http://tinyurl.com/q58p6

Spare us more embarrassment: Replace King.

The above links to an editorial from that wild-eyed radical media outlet,
"The Des Moines Register", apologizing for its prior endorsement of Steve
King and urging Iowans in the 5th District to send him back to private
life.

From referring to Iraqi prisoner torture as "hazing", to his
characterization of Sen. Joe McCarthy as "a great American hero", to his
activist role in Congressional intrusion into the Terri Schiavo case, to
his prior and current code-speak concerning the need for "cultural
continuity" in America, King has (from the Register editorial) "made a
name for himself with far-out remarks in the service of far-right
causes."

Recent King remarks (complete with "statistics") excoriate "murderous
illegal aliens":

http://tinyurl.com/rzazy

...and now his C-SPAN performance. Wotta guy. Stephen King is more
believable.

*********************************************************

> Is it true that the murder rate in Iraq as a whole is lower
> than that of seven major US cities?

You've already been smacked around plenty by other posters concerning
this point, but just for fun.....

Even if true, it would only serve to illuminate either the glaring
absence or total failure of the Bush administration's federal anti-crime
programs.

Does that make you feel better?

> If the number of violent killings
> in Iraq is 16,273 a year,

"If" is the operative word here, Bill. Or don't you believe that
governments often "misstate" casualty figures during a war?

where are the 650K numbers coming from that
> Liberals keep attributing to Bush?

Geez, I don't know, Bill -- outta yer end zone?

Your shopworn Invisible Liberals tar-brush dodge is just so utterly
predictable, but if that's your game...

Just for openers, and much, much, much closer to home:

Either personally and definitively repudiate both (1) the manifold
bigoted statements routinely posted by so-called Conservatives right here
in little old ARTD-L, and (2) the individual "conservative" posters
themselves, or be forever branded as making common cause with them.

You say that you don't wanna play that game?

Then drop the nonsense.

Hawkster

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 11:24:47 PM1/8/07

to

I didn't claim that. Why can't you attribute things to people who say
them?

> > > Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> > > unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things happening
> > > in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
> > >
> > There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
> > million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
> > capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.
>
> What a load of crap. Per capita does NOT adjust for the "type" of
> location (rural, urban, etc).
>

Or war zone or not war zone, but the point is there are major cities in
the US with lower violent death rates than is the average in Iraq,
according to the claims in this thread. I'm not sure what the problem is
supposed to be. It's not apples vs oranges.

> That makes a huge difference.
> Otherwise, you could add up a bunch of small US towns until you hit 6
> million and use that as your comparison against Baghdad. Why wouldn't
> you want to do that?
>

What would be the point of that? You'd have low crime areas compared to
a war zone. Of course there's more violence in the war zone.

fiend999

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 7:35:48 AM1/9/07

to

In article <45A3190F...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

You have been defending the original poster's claim that the liberal
media is making Iraq look worse than it really is for a few days now.
I assumed that you and he shared more than just the inability to look
at things objectively.

>
>
>
> > > > Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> > > > unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things happening
> > > > in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
> > > >
> > > There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
> > > million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
> > > capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.
> >
> > What a load of crap. Per capita does NOT adjust for the "type" of
> > location (rural, urban, etc).
> >
> Or war zone or not war zone, but the point is there are major cities in
> the US with lower violent death rates than is the average in Iraq,
> according to the claims in this thread. I'm not sure what the problem is
> supposed to be. It's not apples vs oranges.

Two words for you to look up: city and country. They are in fact as
different as apples and oranges.

>
>
> > That makes a huge difference.
> > Otherwise, you could add up a bunch of small US towns until you hit 6
> > million and use that as your comparison against Baghdad. Why wouldn't
> > you want to do that?
> >
> What would be the point of that? You'd have low crime areas compared to
> a war zone. Of course there's more violence in the war zone.

You almost seem to get it - the original comparison of a country
(including non-violent areas) to certain cities during record breaking
violent years is just as pointless. I am glad you seem to get it
finally.

--
~~~

BC

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 8:10:46 AM1/9/07

to

Gawd...you people on this thread are kind of missing
the obvious: the 50,000 esitimate for Iraqi civilian
casualties is utterly friggin bogus and *has* to be off by
at least a factor of 10 -- 500,000 -- which would put in
well within the range of the Lancet study estimate of
426,369 to 793,663

I already did the math back in October on another news
group (see http://tinyurl.com/ycgnp7) using US crime
rates and those of other countryies and there is *no*
way whatsoever to reconcile what we're seeing in Iraq
with the accepted official estimate of 50k. None. Which
means the 50,000 number has to be a gross underecount
of what's really happening.

But let's the math do the talking, shall we -- I'll just
combine and repost what I did originally and you can try
to figure out an alternative explanation:

****
[In regards to the Lancet study that estimated 655,000
civilian casualties]

That is so bad in so many ways. Statistical extrapolation is
always tricky, but it is based on real science. The margin of
error here ranges from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths, so even
the low is too much. The murderous and destructive mayhem
over there makes accurate census-type accounting virtually
impossible.

There are only three possible solutions by my count: planned
phaseout and let the Iraqis deal with the fate we delivered;
institute basically a new offensive with at least 3x the number
of troops we are now using, for at least a 90 day operation
window; or just come up with a much more intelligent battle
plan using existing personnel than we now have. The 2nd
and 3rd options will probably only work with a whole new
command organization in place at the upper plannning levels,
up to and including the people in the White House.

I'm thinking now that impeachment isn't just for punishing
a liar, but now more importantly to get some people of
competence and intelligence in place to deal with an urgent
problem requiring competence and intelligence.

****

> That number is bullshit, I can't believe that you libs accept anything
> you read as fact. Every other estimate puts the number as less than
> 50,000, yet this study is 655k+? They didn't even base their study on
> any actual body counts. It's pure speculation, you morons believe
> these stupid stats time and time again. What are we talking about, an
> AVERAGE of over 15,000 kills per month? You guys need wake the fuck
> up, and find some common sense.

Dumbass, that 50,000 count comes only from media and
eyewitness accounts of specific deaths, so "common sense" --
if you had any -- will tell you that should only be fraction of
all deaths, the bulk of which would happen in the worst areas
of Iraq where there is little on-site press coverage or "official"
tallying for somewhat obvious (if you're not a dumbass)
reasons.

Here, go see how the most cited study of Iraqi civilians are
counted and see if you can find a few issues with counting as
such in an active war zone:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php#methods

****

Also, try doing some math.

The murder rate in our worst cities tends to be around 50 per
100,000/year. Or 500 murders per 1 million population/year

Iraq has a population of about 26,000,000 so if it was simply
suffering with a murder rate comparable to Detroit or DC, it
would have a baseline murder rate of 500 * 26 = 13 000 murders
per year.

But the entire country to different degrees is a war zone, so the
murder/killing rate would be much, MUCH higher than the 13k
per year from a simple high crime rate. If you multiply the rate
by just 10, you would get 130,000/year. It's been about 3 1/2
years, so 3.5 * 130k = 455,000, which would put us in the low
range of the 426,369 to 793,663 deaths estimated by The
Lancet study:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2398967,00.html

Hope this enlightens.

****

> Now this is the kind of post that I like! Seriously, I like it when
a
> liberal comes at me with logic, so you get my respect...not that you
> probably care though. I would respond that there is a fallacy with
> your arguement. I'm not sure that you can take the murder rate of one
> of the most violent cities and extrapolate that to an entire country.
> C'mon now, every other estimate puts the number somewhere around
> 50,000. The number of 650,000 just doesn't pass the common sense test.
> This study seems to get down in the statistical weeds, and we all know
> that we can arrive at whatever number we want. Maybe oversampling
> violent areas or something. How valid can it be when every other study
> places the death toll at a tenth of what this study is?

Actually, after my calculation, it's that 50,000 number that
makes no sense whatsoever. Using 50 murders/100,000/year
as a baseline makes sense when you consider that even
places like Detroit, DC and Baltimore with rates now down to
about 40/murders/100k/yr (the rates dropped a lot during the
90's and are about 1/2 what they were around 1990) are still
nowhere near being actually dangerous places overall -- you
can go visit, shop, and wander around as long as you avoid
the bad areas especially at night.

It's unclear how dangerous Iraq was before the war, but
given Hussein's treatment of people he didn't like and the
the chronic conflicts in the Kurdish area, it's likely that the
murder rate for all of Iraq was not than much better than a
place like DC. So as I calculated, if you use the 50/100k/yr
as the base murder rate for 26 million people, then you end
up with 13,000 people being killed each in the country for
one reason or another, but without a war.

OK, now let's take that 50,000 death number and have "fun"
with that. 50k spread over the 3 1/2 years since the invasion
comes out to about 14,286 additional deaths per year since
the war started on top of the baseline murder rate we
estimated at 13,000. That represents almost exactly a
110% increase in violent death since the war started.

So basically, if you accept the 50,000 number as being
more realistic, then you're saying the war, the insurgency,
and the Shi'ite-Sunni sectarian violence has only made
Iraq roughly about twice as dangerous as it use to be
before the war.

Does that make any sense at at all? Suppose you add
the death rates together, the 13,000 estimated per year
baseline plus the 14,286 per year added using the 50,000
total the Bush administration is apparently saying is more
true -- you end up with a total murder/killing rate of 27,286
per year per Iraq's 26 million population. This translates
to a murder/killing rate of about 105/100k/year. Is that a
lot or a little?

Well, let's check the crime statistics for Washington DC:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
In 1991, there were 482 murders (reported ones that is)
in a population of 589,000. That comes out to a murder
rate of 82/100k/yr, which in turn means that DC back in
1991 was only about a 22% safer than Iraq has been on
average during the past 3 1/2 years if you believe that
50,000 number for civilian deaths.

Apparently DC's near war-like murder rate around 1991
didn't hurt the convention business a whole lot:
http://www.meetings-conventions.com/gold/service.html
(check near the bottom.)

Eff Why Eye.

****

PS -- After posting this, I realized that there is no way to
"fix" this to make the 50,000 number less ridiculous. The
only variable is my using a high US city murder rate of
50/100k/year as the pre-war guesstimated baseline, and
if you try to adjust that up or down, you still end up with
ridiculous results using the 50k death number.

If you decrease the baseline murder estimate by half to
25/100k/year, you also half the total pre-war murders per
year to 6500. Add that to the 14,286 per year you would
get with the 50 total death number spread over 3 1/2 years
and you now get a 20,786 per year murder/killing death
rate for Iraq's 26 million population. That translates to
about 80 deaths/100000/year, which is actually slightly
less than than DC's 1991 murder rate of 82/100k/yr or
just only about twice what the current murder rates are
in DC, Detroit and Baltimore. I don't seem to recall the
cops in those cities complaining about their Humvee's not
being sufficiently armored.

If you double the baseline estimate to 100/100k/year,
you now double the total pre-war murders per year to
26,000. What does that get you when you factor in the
additional 14,286/yr rate if you buy the 50k total? That
would raise the murder/killing total to 40,286, and that
would in turn means that the war, the insurgency, and
the sectarian violence ended up making living in Iraq
only about 55% more dangerous than before. Which
again makes no sense.

Since murder rates in US cities can go up or down by
close to a factor of 3 with just changes in the economy
and (presumably) better policing, that 10x factor I originally
used to estimate the increase in murder and killing rates
in Iraq for a 3 1/2 yr total of 455,000 looks to be a very
modest and conservative estimate. Which in turn means
that The Lancet study estimate of 426,369 to 793,663 is
right on the money.

Which of course means Bush's dismissal of it is just
further evidence for the need to impeach his sorry, lying
ass ASAP after the mid-terms.

****

> Well, this thread's over for me. I've seen half a dozen estimates
> ranging from 350-600K Iraqi dead. No matter how you slice it, that's
> a lot of dead people. More than Hussein ever copped in the same
> period of time.

> Swill

Feel free to try to find any faults with my numbers.
The short version is that if you want to believe that
50,000 is more realistic than 600,000, then you have
to also believe that visiting Iraq, at the very worst,
is only about twice as dangerous as visiting DC. At
best, it's only about as dangerous or even less so
than visiting DC.

Now, I've been using as a prewar baseline estimate the
murder rates in the worst US cities, about 50/100k/yr

Currently Columbia, South America, is listed as having
the worst country-wide murder rate of about 62/100k/yr
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

So it would be reasonable to asssume that pre-war
Iraq was no worse than this. By all accounts, Hussein
may have been brutal, but he maintained order.

On the same charts, the US is listed as having a
country-wide murder rate of only just over 4/100k/yr

So it would be reasonable to assume that pre-war
Iraq was no (or not much) better than this, although
Saudi Arabia is listed as only having 1/100k/yr

You put the Iraq's 26,000,000 at anywhere near those
extremes for the pre-war status, and that 50,000 number
still make absolutely no sense

-----
For 62/100k/yr:

This comes to 16,120/yr. Add the 14,286/yr from the
50k total number and you get 30,406/yr for all of Iraq,
making the murder/killing rate about 117/100k/yr

Which is only about 43% more than DC's 1991 murder
rate of 82/100k/yr. Last year, DC's rate was about 35
per/100k, so the 117 rate would represent a rate 3.4x
higher.

This is rather illustrative in regards to figuring out what
minimal increases in death rates you can expect when
a war starts. DC in 1991 had a murder rate about 2.3
times higher than it was in 2005, but it was certainly
no war zone then -- as I pointed out earlier, convention
business was still good in 1991 at least:
http://www.meetings-conventions.com/gold/service.html

So even that 3.4x differential would hardly constitute
the point when you would need full body armor and
heavily protected vehicles. My 10x estimate sounds a
bit more reasonable and, if anything, is still way too
conserative in estimating the rise in deaths when war
starts.
----

For 4/100k/yr

This comes to 1040/yr. Add the 14,286/yr from the
50k total number and you get 15,326/yr for all of Iraq,
making the murder/killing rate about 59/100k/yr,
which is almost exactly midway between the 1991
murder rate of 82/100k/yr and the 2005 rate of
35/100k/yr.

In other words, the Iraqi tourist and convention business
should be very good and, um, "booming" at this point
if you use DC as a comparison.
----

This isn't exactly hard math and the data is simple and
easy to look up. But Bush and his people apparently
believe, for some strange reason, that they can just blow
off The Lancet report and state utterly nonsensical BS
and get away with it. Go read carefully the contents of
this official US State Department article commenting
on The Lancet study and then see if you can perhaps
detect a few inconsistencies: http://tinyurl.com/y53xym

****

That should take care of it.

-BC

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 8:24:32 PM1/9/07

to

fiend999 wrote:
>
> Two words for you to look up: city and country. They are in fact as
> different as apples and oranges.

One Point for you to Consider.........The Header of this Thread is
"Comparing The Iraq Violent Death Rate to that of U.S.
Cities"...........If the Results make you Unhappy because they
Effectively REFUTE all this "Iraq is A DISASTER!!" Bullshit, Tough
Bananas..........It's time you Leftist Sonsabitches Faced
FACTS..............

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 8:28:15 PM1/9/07

to

BC wrote:
>
> Gawd...you people on this thread are kind of missing
> the obvious: the 50,000 esitimate for Iraqi civilian
> casualties is utterly friggin bogus and *has* to be off by
> at least a factor of 10 -- 500,000 -- which would put in
> well within the range of the Lancet study estimate of
> 426,369 to 793,663

So What?.........Apparently you never learned that "War Is
HELL".........But Some People DON''T Understand ANYTHING but the Point
Of A Gun...........That's when War becomes NECESSARY..........

robw

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 8:29:46 PM1/9/07

to

No problem.

17000 Iraqi's died the last six months of this year.

Show any city (or combination of) where that many died due to Gang wars.
(which is all Iraq is now)

We're waiting.

<theloner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168392272.1...@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

robw

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 10:59:01 PM1/9/07

to

"War" is useless.

<theloner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168392495....@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 12:47:00 AM1/10/07

to

I never even mentioned any supposed "liberal media".

> > > > > Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> > > > > unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things happening
> > > > > in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
> > > > >
> > > > There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
> > > > million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
> > > > capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.
> > >
> > > What a load of crap. Per capita does NOT adjust for the "type" of
> > > location (rural, urban, etc).
> > >
> > Or war zone or not war zone, but the point is there are major cities in
> > the US with lower violent death rates than is the average in Iraq,
> > according to the claims in this thread. I'm not sure what the problem is
> > supposed to be. It's not apples vs oranges.
> Two words for you to look up: city and country. They are in fact as
> different as apples and oranges.
>

There are differences between cities and coutries and similarlities.
Cities, for example, don't usually get a seat at the UN, unless they are
also countries. In any case, the average violance in a city can
certainly be compared to the average violence in a country. It isn't
like comparing apples to, what was it, people driving cars on tuesdays?
There is a comparison to make. You just don't want to do it.

> >
> > > That makes a huge difference.
> > > Otherwise, you could add up a bunch of small US towns until you hit 6
> > > million and use that as your comparison against Baghdad. Why wouldn't
> > > you want to do that?
> > >
> > What would be the point of that? You'd have low crime areas compared to
> > a war zone. Of course there's more violence in the war zone.
>
> You almost seem to get it - the original comparison of a country
> (including non-violent areas) to certain cities during record breaking
> violent years is just as pointless. I am glad you seem to get it
> finally.
>

What are you talking about?

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 12:48:34 AM1/10/07

to

robw wrote:
>
> "War" is useless.
>
So you recommend capitulation?

BC

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 4:27:25 AM1/10/07

to

Bill Bonde wrote:
> robw wrote:
> >
> > "War" is useless.
> >
> So you recommend capitulation?

Since war kinda, sorta generally means wholesale
death and destruction, it's probably best for all the
parties involved to leave it as a means of last resort
when all else fails. And if you do go to war, do try to
so for legirmate reasons and not make up all sorts
of lying-ass nonsense, and then try to make sure
that there, you know, things like strategy, sufficient
personnel and supplies, and of course a point to it
all.

-BC

fiend999

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 7:52:46 AM1/10/07

to

In article <45A47DD...@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Learn to read. Do you know what it means when someone uses the phrase
"original poster's claim"?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Why would they report that nothing was going on in relatively
> > > > > > unpopulated parts of Iraq when there are significant things
> > > > > > happening
> > > > > > in the part of Iraq where most people actually live?
> > > > > >
> > > > > There are 23 million Iraqis and the population of Baghdad is about six
> > > > > million, call it seven million in the province. We were talking per
> > > > > capita anyway so that corrects for where the population is.
> > > >
> > > > What a load of crap. Per capita does NOT adjust for the "type" of
> > > > location (rural, urban, etc).
> > > >
> > > Or war zone or not war zone, but the point is there are major cities in
> > > the US with lower violent death rates than is the average in Iraq,
> > > according to the claims in this thread. I'm not sure what the problem is
> > > supposed to be. It's not apples vs oranges.
> > Two words for you to look up: city and country. They are in fact as
> > different as apples and oranges.
> >
> There are differences between cities and coutries and similarlities.
> Cities, for example, don't usually get a seat at the UN, unless they are
> also countries. In any case, the average violance in a city can
> certainly be compared to the average violence in a country. It isn't
> like comparing apples to, what was it, people driving cars on tuesdays?
> There is a comparison to make. You just don't want to do it.

You can compare anything you want. Just don't expect anyone to take
you seriously if your comparison is ridiculous.

>
> > >
> > > > That makes a huge difference.
> > > > Otherwise, you could add up a bunch of small US towns until you hit 6
> > > > million and use that as your comparison against Baghdad. Why wouldn't
> > > > you want to do that?
> > > >
> > > What would be the point of that? You'd have low crime areas compared to
> > > a war zone. Of course there's more violence in the war zone.
> >
> > You almost seem to get it - the original comparison of a country
> > (including non-violent areas) to certain cities during record breaking
> > violent years is just as pointless. I am glad you seem to get it
> > finally.
> >
> What are you talking about?

Nevermind, Shill. I thought for a minute there you gained the ability
to use logic.
Just put your head back wherever you have been keeping it.

--
~~~

Adam Albright

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 10:19:27 AM1/10/07

to

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:48:34 -0800, Bill Bonde
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>robw wrote:
>>
>> "War" is useless.
>>
>So you recommend capitulation?

What are right wing toads recommending?

Oh... putting more Americans into the meatgrinder that Bush created so
he can strut around and pretend to be a "war president".

Great plan, Einstein.

Stephen Jay Morris

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 10:30:46 AM1/10/07

to

Arentcha GLAD The Democrats VOTED to Go To War with
Iraq??............Arentcha GLAD the Democrats VOTED to Keep The Troops
IN IRAQ TWICE??..........Heehee..........

r wiley

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 11:55:07 AM1/10/07

to

There are 300 million Americans in the USA. There are about
140 thousand Americans in Iraq. For the subject line to be true
about 175 thousand Americans a year would have to die by
violence in the USA.

rw

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".

George W. Bush

"I had other priorities."

Dick Cheney

theloner...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 12:02:48 PM1/10/07

to

r wiley wrote:
> There are 300 million Americans in the USA. There are about
> 140 thousand Americans in Iraq. For the subject line to be true
> about 175 thousand Americans a year would have to die by
> violence in the USA.

You gotta learn how to R-E-A-D, Dude..........Do you see "CITIES!!" in
the Header??........The Stat ONLY applies to People in Certain U.S.
CITIES..........Nice "Try"..........Please Insert Another
Quarter...........Thank You.........

Bill Bonde

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 12:08:37 PM1/10/07

to

BC wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > robw wrote:
> > >
> > > "War" is useless.
> > >
> > So you recommend capitulation?
>
> Since war kinda, sorta generally means wholesale
> death and destruction,
>

Actually while death has been at a possibility probably in all
engagements that have been called "war", whether it was "wholesale" or
not depended on various factors. For example, in ancient tribal
societies, there were sometimes near constant wars between groups but
the killing aspect was minimized. Even in sophisticated societies, wars
or at least engagements were won sometimes by manoeuvre alone. The
"total war" of Clausewitzian, while not an invention of the 20th
century, was certainly brought to the front then to now.

> it's probably best for all the
> parties involved to leave it as a means of last resort
> when all else fails.
>

So is Bush making a mistake by engaging al Qaeda supporting Islamists in
Somalia? That's certainly a widening of the US aspect of the war against
terror to Africa, not that the US probably wasn't already there but this
is big enough to be on the evening news.

> And if you do go to war, do try to
> so for legirmate reasons and not make up all sorts
> of lying-ass nonsense,
>

You've had the reasons for Iraq and for Afghanistan repeatedly explained
to you. You just don't want to defeat al Qaeda with military means.

> and then try to make sure
> that there, you know, things like strategy, sufficient
> personnel and supplies, and of course a point to it
> all.
>

The war against terrorism may take a long time, like the Cold War, so we
wouldn't want to burn out. As it is, people like you are complaining
that the US is spending too much. That doesn't suggest you support
putting in more troops.