Iraq Less Violent Than Washington, D.C.

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT

Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics compiled by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.

"I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence," he said. "What really is the level of violence?"

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.

"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:

# Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000

# Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000

# Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000

# St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000

The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

 

[raVeneyes]

heh I like the number pushing he's doing there...

"annualized Iraqi Civilian Death rate"

Well, Iraq's own Shiite-led government's current announcement is that since April 28, 05 the total death toll of Iraqis has been 11,953...2,907 of which were Iraqi police, so I am not sure where to count them...since they are counted in US death statistics as civilians I'll throw them in.

"annualizing" that number we get 12,000 deaths in 13 months, so 11,000 deaths per year. Further dividing that number to make it look smaller we get 11,000 deaths per 26,783,383 people per year or 41 deaths per hundred thousand...gee they should have gone with the "official numbers".

Now...let's make this comparison more realistic shall we? Iraq may in fact be marginally better death per hundred thousand than an urban center with thousands of people per square mile, but if you want a more realistic comparison let's look at California.

Iraq is about the same size (167,556 sq mi) as the entire state of California (155,959 sq mi) and has a population (26,783,383) about the same as California (35,893,799) as well...so you want to compare it to a reigon, compare it to California. (This is in fact giving the benefit of the doubt to supporters because California [230.1 people/sq mi] is slightly more population dense than Iraq [159.8 people/sq mi])

California had a murder rate of 6.7 per 100,000 in 2004 and the highest murder rate for the state was in 1980 at 14.5 per 100,000

 

[raVeneyes]

also, a note about "media coverage purporting to show...escalating violence in Iraq"

In the three month period March, April, May 2006 alone, there were 2527 civilian Iraqi deaths and 533 Iraqi police deaths. that's a total of 3060 deaths in that three month period or if we "annualize" it to make it comparable the current trend makes it 12,240 deaths per year or 45.7 deaths per hundred thousand.

going from 41 to 46 deaths per hundred thousand may not seem like much until you realize there's close to 27 million Iraqis

 

[fossten]

heh I like the number pushing he's doing there...

Iraq is about the same size (167,556 sq mi) as the entire state of California (155,959 sq mi) and has a population (26,783,383) about the same as California (35,893,799) as well...

actually, your math is worse than his...

The Iraqi population is just 74.6% of California's population. Hardly "about the same." In fact, the concentration per square mile is higher, despite the difference in overall area, which by the way shows that California is 93% of the area of Iraq.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Try again.

 

[raVeneyes]

In fact, the concentration per square mile is higher, despite the difference in overall area, which by the way shows that California is 93% of the area of Iraq.

The fact that the concentration per square mile of California (which I noted) is higher only helps those who seek to justify the war...there's a direct correlation between population density and violent crime. The more dense a population the higher the crime rate.

My math wasn't bad, a 75% population number difference is pretty damned close and the closest you'll get out of any of the states.

So, if you can find a better comparison I'm all ears, but regardless of where you look I'm sure you'll find the death toll per hundred thousand very much smaller than 41

 

[fossten]

The fact that the concentration per square mile of California (which I noted) is higher only helps those who seek to justify the war...there's a direct correlation between population density and violent crime. The more dense a population the higher the crime rate.

My math wasn't bad, a 75% population number difference is pretty damned close and the closest you'll get out of any of the states.

So, if you can find a better comparison I'm all ears, but regardless of where you look I'm sure you'll find the death toll per hundred thousand very much smaller than 41

Your math was bad, your conclusions even more erroneous. You can't claim "pretty damned close" when the margin is more than +- 3%. You're not even statistically on the same arc of the bell curve. By your math and logic, Kerry won the election in 04 since he only lost by 3 million votes. Sheesh.

You also tried to bait and switch criteria from deaths per 100,000 to population density. Typical flash and distract.

 

[RRocket]

Who's numbers and criteria are they using for "civilian"..the coalition's or Iraqui's? The US military numbers for such have been notoriously low. For example, when the heaviest fighting in Fallujah had ended, Iraqi hospitals, doctors, Red Cross, and an independant British group monitoring the death toll in Iraq noted over 600+ dead, with 300 dead being women and children. The US military said 275 dead, with 60 women and children. That's a big variation. Anytime a coalition kills a civilian, they are an "insurgents", and not a civilian. There's been numerous times where I've read about an incident in Iraq from 2 different news sources with 2 wildly different numbers on how many civilians killed. FYIW, I've also seen the same thing about US military casualties. Some members in the free press in Iraq are quoted as seeing several service men "blown to pieces" by an IED, yet a full denial from official sources. I'd be curious to see who's numbers they are using. There is plenty of spin on both sides. There is no question the numbers could be misrepresented if either side wanted it...

 

[raVeneyes]

Look, I don't know what you're talking about there fossten...or why you're trying to start a fight as usual.

Rep. Steve King just drew some bad conclusions off some bad data is all that I was saying. There is no flash and distract fossten. There is one issue, the number of deaths per year per hundred thousand people in a given area, one being Iraq. In order to do a proper comparison you must get as close as possible in area (sq mi) and full population to the area you are putting up for comparison when trying to compare crime statistics...any criminologist can tell you that, or even any social scientist.

Crime goes up in direct relation to population density...to show the true danger level in Iraq you have to compare it with an area with a similar size and population density.

The closest that I was able to find was California with a near identical size and very close population density. I would welcome a closer comparison, and these figures are available online publicly, just go to google and type "US Almanac." If you can come up with a closer comparison please do, I welcome the information and comparison.

I think you will find though that in comparing any sized area of the US with a similar population density to that of Iraq you will get a much much smaller murder rate than 41 per 100,000 per year.

I welcome a debate with merit-able arguments, but unless you can provide better data I don't see the point in you refuting mine, other than your typical tactic of throwing stones and yelling.

 

[decibels5]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT

Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics compiled by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.

"I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence," he said. "What really is the level of violence?"

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.

"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:

# Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000

# Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000

# Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000

# St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000

The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

DONT FORGET JACKSONVILLE FL. IN JANUARY, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE 24 MURDERS IN ABOUT 30 DAYS. THIS WAS THE FIRST MONTH, NOW WE ARE CLOSE TO LIKE 70 MURDERS THIS YEAR. IM TRYING TO GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE

 

[MAC1]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT

Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics compiled by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Iraq is "less violent" than Washington, D.C.? Of course it’s not!

The title of the article is way off base.

While Washington, D.C. can be a violent place as borne out by annual homicide statistics; however, the acts of terror and violence occurring in Iraq are clearly not occurring in any U.S. city, including Washington, D.C.

In Iraq bombs are going off almost on a daily basis killing and maiming U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians. Obviously, King's analysis is meant to only focus on a single factor in order to downplay the extent of violence in Iraq. He conveniently forgets about the destruction of property, the human casualties, including the physical and psychological tolls the war is having on the civilian population.

The definition of "violence" is more than simply the number of deaths per 100,000. Trying to marginalize the extent of violence, death and destruction in Iraq by misleading and irrelevant statistical analysis is utterly moronic. I think most that know anything about the war in Iraq will instantly understand that it is a more “violent” place than any city in the United States.

Suffice it to say, I doubt King will be spending time in Iraq any time soon; however, he apparently has no problem working in Washington, D.C., which, according to him, is more “violent.”

 

[RRocket]

Does this mean King will soon be petitioning Bush to bring the troops home since Iraq is so "safe"? Perhpas he'll ask to have those troops deployed in some of those horrifically dangerous US cities?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I welcome a debate with merit-able arguments, but unless you can provide better data I don't see the point in you refuting mine, other than your typical tactic of throwing stones and yelling.

Always consider the source: A NewsMax article posted by fossten....... 'nuf said. I don't waste my time anymore because neither of them have any shred of credibility for sharing facts without anti-democrat or anti-liberal spin.

"I got my hater blockers on........"

 

[Calabrio]

I think the more broad point is being lost here. This article is designed to make a simple point.

No one would logically argue that you're safer walking around ina hot zone in Iraq than in D.C., well, most parts of D.C. But the point is, when you take into account the whole of Iraq, the numbers demonstrate the reality doesn't resemble the horrible image advanced by the media.

We really don't need to go any further than that. You can nit pick over the numbers, but by proving that the death rate in California is lower than in Iraq you're really not addressing the actual point.

There are some intense areas within Iraq, but MOST of the country is completely secure and stable. So when taken you compare the whole of Iraq with some American cities (interestingly enough all those cities appear to be run by Democrat administrations) things are given some perspective. A bit of counterbalance to the news. It's skewed, but it's making a point in a way that is simple to understand, easy to visualize, and plays off of generalized conceptions of the inner city.

 

[MAC1]

I think the more broad point is being lost here. This article is designed to make a simple point.

No one would logically argue that you're safer walking around ina hot zone in Iraq than in D.C., well, most parts of D.C. But the point is, when you take into account the whole of Iraq, the numbers demonstrate the reality doesn't resemble the horrible image advanced by the media.

We really don't need to go any further than that. You can nit pick over the numbers, but by proving that the death rate in California is lower than in Iraq you're really not addressing the actual point.

There are some intense areas within Iraq, but MOST of the country is completely secure and stable. So when taken you compare the whole of Iraq with some American cities (interestingly enough all those cities appear to be run by Democrat administrations) things are given some perspective. A bit of counterbalance to the news. It's skewed, but it's making a point in a way that is simple to understand, easy to visualize, and plays off of generalized conceptions of the inner city.

The point that much of Iraq is peaceful has been made on numerous occasions and most are willing to concede such point. If King wishes to make that point again, that's fine; but leave out the disingenuous analogies.

 

[Calabrio]

The point that much of Iraq is peaceful has been made on numerous occasions and most are willing to concede such point. If King wishes to make that point again, that's fine; but leave out the disingenuous analogies.

And if no one remembers, what's the point? He's using imagery so that people will remember the point. Because after they hear him say it, the audience will then be bombarded with negative, disengenuos and deceptive information from the news.

You note that most are willing to concede the point King makes. Well, the people who closely follow international events will. However, those who get their news from the media, or the Daily Show, don't concede that. They think it's a quagmire. They think the country is engaged in a civil war. They think every dire and negative thought possible based on the perspective of the international media.

In a sound bite era, it's necessary to be able to package your information or your point in easily accessible and quickly related information, so that it resonates in the public and counterbalances the tremendous amount of leftist crap that the media advances.

 

[MonsterMark]

In a sound bite era, it's necessary to be able to package your information or your point in easily accessible and quickly related information, so that it resonates in the public and counterbalances the tremendous amount of leftist crap that the media advances.

One of the best paragraphs ever posted on the Internet.

 

[Dominus]

There are many places in America I'd feel less safe in than Iraq. Face it, if someone gave you the option of staying in a nice hotel in Bagdhad, or a flophouse in Camden, NJ, which would you choose?

His point was taken with me. Iraq is safer than most places portray it.