Iraq how Dangerous is it?

[OrangeEmpire]

Steve King

The statement was made by the gentlewoman that there have been 27,000 civilians that have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of our operations there, and that date for me would be March 22, 2003. That, indeed, may be the number, and I don't take issue with the specificity of that number of 27,000 civilians killed. I would point out, though, that there have been now 3 years and a little more than a month go by, so one would need to divide that down to take a look at it from an annual perspective, and that would take that down to about 9,000 civilians a year.

Okay so far?

but I did find the numbers for Iraq. For Iraq, the victims of violence, and in that we include the bombing victims, of civilians and those that are victims also of murder in Iraq, it comes down to 27.51 deaths per 100,000 per year; 27.51 is the number.

And?

So if you are living in a city of exactly 100,000 people, statistically there would be 27.51 of them who would die a violent death in any given year. That is the statistical number.

So, we know that 27.51 people per 100,000 people die from violence in Iraq since we got there…

Is that a high number?

Now, how does this compare across the rest of the world? Well, one might look at a country, say, like Venezuela, 31.61 violent deaths per 100,000. So Venezuela is slightly more dangerous to live in than Iraq is.

And Jamaica, 32.40 violent deaths per 100,000 compared to the 27.51 in Iraq. Jamaica is slightly more dangerous to live in than Iraq.

And then you have South Africa. It jumps all the way up to 49.60.

Now, we are starting to see some numbers here that take us up to almost twice the rate, it is a little less than twice the rate of Iraq's fatality rate; 49.60 in South Africa per 100,000.

But we do have some numbers that go over twice the rate. One of those would be Colombia. Iraq, 27.51 deaths per 100,000; Colombia, 61.78 violent deaths per 100,000, more than two times as many deaths there. It is more than twice as dangerous to be a civilian living supposedly in peace and harmony in Colombia than it is to be a civilian living in the middle of this chaos in Iraq that I hear is intolerable.

So those are for 3rd world countries…well Iraq is a 3rd world country too…but still isn’t 27.51 is a high number?

I am going to go to Washington, D.C.; 45.9 deaths per 100,000, Mr. Speaker, compared to the 27.5 in Iraq per 100,000.

Detroit, 41.8. It is getting a little safer in Detroit than it is in Washington, D.C., but still far more dangerous in Detroit than it is in Iraq to be a civilian. .

Baltimore, 37.7; Atlanta, 34.9; St. Louis, 31.4. We are getting down there closer to the fatality rate to live in St. Louis rather than living somewhere in Iraq at 27.51.

Okay…living here in Columubs/Central Ohio area I’m MORE LIKELY to die from violence than if I lived in Iraq…

WOW

Now we all know that this is Steve King…Republican of IA…and a little ‘out there’ for some of you.

Fine…I looked but there are many here that have better skills than I process…

Can anyone Debunk this?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

If stuff like this keeps coming up and the Iraqi leader's rheotoric keeps sounding like this then I would be concerned it's going to get a lot more dangerous for US forces in the days ahead.

 

[vader]

I thought this was interesting and looked around a bit. I got the following from this site and here. They seem to be a very left leaning sites, but alas, pick your bias. I do believe that trying to represent things in Iraq as "not so bad" is ludicrous.

OE, have you ever read Micheal Yon's blog from Iraq and Afghanistan? That guy has some pretty good articles. Link

The Brookings Institute, however, estimates an annualized murder rate of 95 per 100,000 Iraqis in Bagdad. Brookings notes this number may be “too low since many murder victims are never taken to the morgue, but buried quickly and privately and therefore never recorded in official tallies.”

Lastly, the King report is trying to conflate the data for one urban area in the U.S. with the entire country of Iraq. As OpinionJournal writes, “The comparison with U.S. cities poses a problem of scale. Just as some municipalities here have high concentrations of crime, Baghdad and some other Iraqi cities have high concentrations of military, guerrilla and terrorist activity. A comparison of Baghdad with Los Angeles or a similarly sprawling U.S. city would be more enlightening than a comparison of Iraq as a whole with cities of well under a million people.”

Let me also add that a violent death rate of 27 per 100,000 people for an entire country is incredibly bloody high. Just for comparison, the murder rate for all of America in 2004 was 5.5 per 100,000. Now, that isn’t the same as a violent death rate, but it’s safe to say that our violent death rate doesn’t come anywhere near 27 per 100,000, since we don’t have to deal with multiple car bombings on a near-daily basis

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I try and read as much as I can from every perspective possible.

I think Iraq is like global warming..........not good, but not as bad as some would have you believe. Coughs***OWB***

 

[cd12]

As long as we try to fight a "politically correct" war things will only get worse! Untie the military's hands, let the commanders do what they have trained their whole lives to do and end this thing! Its easy to fight from behind a desk, computer, camera or pulpit! Kick Ass and Press On!

 

[OWB]

I try and read as much as I can from every perspective possible.

I think Iraq is like global warming..........not good, but not as bad as some would have you believe. Coughs***OWB***

Well, you should have just bought some plane tickets and flown to Iraq for your birthday. I'm pretty sure you could get a good hotel room for a reasonable fee. :question:

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

As long as we try to fight a "politically correct" war things will only get worse! Untie the military's hands, let the commanders do what they have trained their whole lives to do and end this thing! Its easy to fight from behind a desk, computer, camera or pulpit! Kick Ass and Press On!

You may be correct, but I can't see it. We are basically fighting an urban war against urban guerillas. Are you saying to go ahead and shoot anyone on sight? Who then is our operative target? Anyone walking down the streets? What then do you mean by saying untie the military's hands? What are we not allowing them to do?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

You may be correct, but I can't see it. We are basically fighting an urban war against urban guerillas. Are you saying to go ahead and shoot anyone on sight? Who then is our operative target? Anyone walking down the streets? What then do you mean by saying untie the military's hands? What are we not allowing them to do?

Martial Law.................................talk about the complications................................

OWB, Ohio State campus after a big win or loss or Iraq? *Weighs options.........*

 

[CSpindizzy]

The ironic thing is that if 160K soldiers cannot secure the borders of Iraq, how can 6000 armchair weekend warriors do anything to help secure the Mexican border?

As for how Iraq is doing, I'd like to ask the contractors that we've spent millions on have little to show for progress. Rolling black-outs, 4 hours of power a day, water still contaminated, etc. are not good ways to show progress 3 years into this war. The bad thing about it is that Baghdad is the most secure but one of the furthest behind on being brought up to speed.

 

[volnuts]

whats the acronym OWB stand for

 

[OWB]

whats the acronym OWB stand for

Orangewhiteblood, but you can type it all out if you want to.

 

[volinbham]

The ironic thing is that if 160K soldiers cannot secure the borders of Iraq, how can 6000 armchair weekend warriors do anything to help secure the Mexican border?

First - 160K soldiers (really about 16 - 20K soldiers and the rest are support/logistics/medical/etc.) aren't on the border in Iraq. They're all over the country.

Second - Iraq has two borders of concern (Syria and Iran). There is pretty wide access into Iraq from the Iran side and considerably less border infrastructure than along the US/Mexican border.

Third - Its not our country so we don't have the same level of administrative control.

Finally, the role of the National Guard will be support (building fences, walls, roads, etc.) and will free up the Border Guard to focus more on stopping the flow.

I think the National Guard will "help" secure the Mexican border.