Fact?

[Jimbuna]

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.


Conclusion: Maybe its time the U.S. pull out of Washington?

[Sailor Steve]

You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!:arrgh!:

[Digital_Trucker]

Personally, I think we should just pick DC up and move it about 200 miles due East of its current location. That would be about the right spot for it.:woot:

[Jimbuna]

You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!:arrgh!:

We can't afford London nevermind Washington :DL

[fatty]

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.

[Dowly]

I'm too drunk to understand that thing, but I vote yay!

[August]

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

[Aramike]

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

[fatty]

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

[Aramike]

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

[fatty]

Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification. :88)

Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

[Digital_Trucker]

2,112 deaths/ 22 months = 96 deaths per month
96 deaths per month / 160,000 average monthly troop level = 60 in 100,000 probability of death in a one month period

Have no idea where the DC number came from, but the Iraq number is correct

[Aramike]

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification. :88)



Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.*Sighs again*

Here's the math:

2112 Deaths in 22 months.
Average Soldier Population is 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 per 100,000
1320 / 22 = 60 Deaths per 100,000 per month.

Do you get it now? We're right back to that magical word, "monthly".

[August]

Or more simply about 1 in 1700.

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

IIRC From the Revolution to WW2 the US kia rate averaged about 1 in 15. In Vietnam it was about 1 in 1500.

[baggygreen]

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

[Aramike]

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*Very true. That is a sad part of the "game" unfortunately.

I did understand where fatty was coming from too, btw. But he was a tad too insistant upon his being correct after his error was pointed out...

Oh well, all in good fun...

[Jimbuna]

Oh well, all in good fun...

Precisely :DL

The original idea was to draw attention to the conclusion and hopefully plant the seed "Washington isn't a war zone" :o

I'm wondering if the risks are even higher in some other US cities :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

I live outside Washington....it is a war zone:yep: I see the aftermath of the night skirmishes on the news all the time.

[Jimbuna]

I live outside Washington....it is a war zone:yep: I see the aftermath of the night skirmishes on the news all the time.

Is that just since Obama moved into the neighbourhood? :DL

[Fincuan]

Old one, and misleading. You can think of that as VERY creative or just plain wrong use of statistics.

See for example here for an conversation on the subject: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/594867.html

This one pretty much sums it up:

While I thought the "joke" about pulling out of D.C. was kind of
funny, I couldn't believe that those figures were right, so I checked
them. They are not even anywhere close based on my calculations.
Whoever published that email really twisted his statistics.

According to the email, there have been 2112 deaths in 22 months.
Average US soldier population in Iraq was 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 deaths per 100,000
1320 deaths / 22 months = 60 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

DC has had 188 murders so far this year, 11 months. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/
Population of D.C. is around 550,000 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108620.html
188 deaths / 5.5 = 34.2 deaths per 100,000
34.2 deaths / 11 months = 3.1 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

So take your pick:
D.C. = 3 people killed per MONTH for every 100,000
Iraq = 60 soldiers killed per MONTH for every 100,000 (or 2 per DAY
for every 100,000!!!)


Note that the figure that above guy used for Washington DC is all murders, not just those committed with a firearm. Without looking at the statistics I bet suicides are a big majority of firearm related deaths in US and Washington D.C anyway, and even if one included them it would be hard to get the math as wrong as in the original version of this "myth".

[Aramike]

Old one, and misleading. You can think of that as VERY creative or just plain wrong use of statistics.

See for example here for an conversation on the subject: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/594867.html

This one pretty much sums it up:


Note that the figure that above guy used for Washington DC is all murders, not just those committed with a firearm. Without looking at the statistics I bet suicides are a big majority of firearm related deaths in US and Washington D.C anyway, and even if one included them it would be hard to get the math as wrong as in the original version of this "myth".Yeah, there's no doubt that the Washington stats were skewed. I'm wondering if someone picked up on an exceptionally bad month and went to town...

[AVGWarhawk]

Is that just since Obama moved into the neighbourhood? :DL

No sir! It has always been bad. I worked one block outside of Washington (Oxon Hill)...it was just bad no matter what time of day. To be honest Jim, the with exception of The Mall(Capitol Hill) and a few afluent spots...the city is a disgrace. You know, when you have a mayor caught on tape with a crack pipe and a whore....there has got to be trouble. Google Marion Barry....

[Arclight]

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*Yep, same thing here in Holland when 1 guy bites the bullet. Big national drama. What the h**l did they expect?! A frickin picknick?!

Though it has to be said that IMHO the army itself is to blaim in this; they promote themselves as a great opportunity to start a career and get an education. Kids around here (I don't call 'm kids because of their age) don't join out of patriotism or because they want to fight for something good, it's because they see a career opportunity. The fact that you get sent on mission out of country is cleverly left out of the promotional material...

"You want to work on apache's, or even fly them? Want to ride in a tank? Want exictement and an education? Join the army!"

I call those guys kids because they actually fall for the propaganda without realizing they could die while in service. :nope:

[Schroeder]

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?:06:

[onelifecrisis]

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?:06:

LOL

(you joke, yes?)

[Aramike]

LOL

(you joke, yes?)Umm, what exactly do you consider a war?

[August]

I thought the war ended a few years ago. It actually is a rate for occupying/peacekeeping, isn't it?:06:

As far as I know there has been no declared end to the Iraq war.

[Aramike]

As far as I know there has been no declared end to the Iraq war.Technically, there wasn't a declared beginning to the Iraq War. In any case, it can hardly be called a "war" during the last few years.

[Schroeder]

As far as I know there has been no declared end to the Iraq war.
Maybe my memory doesn't serve right here, but didn't G.W. Bush declare the operation accomplished on that carrier a few years ago? I thought that was the official end of the "war".http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c010.gif

[Platapus]

It was Mission Accomplished and there are usually multiple missions that need to be accomplished before a war is over.

[Jimbuna]

No sir! It has always been bad. I worked one block outside of Washington (Oxon Hill)...it was just bad no matter what time of day. To be honest Jim, the with exception of The Mall(Capitol Hill) and a few afluent spots...the city is a disgrace. You know, when you have a mayor caught on tape with a crack pipe and a whore....there has got to be trouble. Google Marion Barry....

Quite a colourful character by all accounts :DL

http://www.nndb.com/people/892/000023823/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/barry.htm

[Max2147]

The world would not be as interesting of a place without Marion "The B*tch Set Me Up" Barry.

To be fair, the DC has been cleaned up a lot since the 70's and 80's. Barry didn't have much to do with that, although his successor Anthony Williams deserves some credit.

[AVGWarhawk]

The world would not be as interesting of a place without Marion "The B*tch Set Me Up" Barry.

To be fair, the DC has been cleaned up a lot since the 70's and 80's. Barry didn't have much to do with that, although his successor Anthony Williams deserves some credit.

Like any other town there are spots that are just awful. Basically I scoot down PA Ave right to the mall area for the museums. Adams Morgan was a nice spot as well as Georgetown. DC just might get statehood.

[Aramike]

It was Mission Accomplished and there are usually multiple missions that need to be accomplished before a war is over.Military missions doesn't equal war.

[Platapus]

I got really pissed when Barry closed down the 14th Street "attractions". That was some interesting place to hang out. Like a mini Las Vegas but instead of gambling there was porn, hookers, clip joints, and sex shops. Quite the tourist attraction. :yeah:

All gone now. :wah:

Berry's pledge was to get cocaine off the streets....one gram at a time. :nope:

[Platapus]

Military missions doesn't equal war.

Yes but wars have military missions. :D

[Schroeder]

Now why would POTUS fly to a carrier just to announce that a mission was successful while the war is still raging on??? To me it looked more like he announced victory...:hmmm:

[Platapus]

Now why would POTUS fly to a carrier just to announce that a mission was successful while the war is still raging on??? To me it looked more like he announced victory...:hmmm:

I don't think anyone doubts that this was nothing more than a political stunt. A little premature, but still a stunt.

It is what politicians do. :know:

[August]

Lets get this straight once and for all. It wasn't a stunt, at least not one having anything to do with Bush or the end of the war.

The carrier Bush gave the speech on had just completed a 6 month tour of duty in the gulf and was on it's way home. That mission accomplished sign was put up by the ships command for the crews benefit and was in reference to the ships successful deployment, much like how submariners will tie a broomstick to their periscope to signify a successful cruise, NOT the end of a war that was still very much being actively fought.

Now, were Bushes PR people wrong for letting him be photographed with that sign in the background? The "hindsight is 20-20" answer is yes, given the incorrect assumptions our foreign friends have had over this for over half a decade now.

But one also has to question how much of these incorrect assumptions are related to their deep seated anti-Bush prejudices? After all I've never heard people so predisposed to hating a man as Euros are about our former president.

[Sailor Steve]

Not just Euros. You should talk to my roommate. Anything bad anybody says about anything current, "Well, it can't be as bad as the last eight years!"

[Max2147]

Lets get this straight once and for all. It wasn't a stunt, at least not one having anything to do with Bush or the end of the war.

The carrier Bush gave the speech on had just completed a 6 month tour of duty in the gulf and was on it's way home. That mission accomplished sign was put up by the ships command for the crews benefit and was in reference to the ships successful deployment, much like how submariners will tie a broomstick to their periscope to signify a successful cruise, NOT the end of a war that was still very much being actively fought.

Now, were Bushes PR people wrong for letting him be photographed with that sign in the background? The "hindsight is 20-20" answer is yes, given the incorrect assumptions our foreign friends have had over this for over half a decade now.

But one also has to question how much of these incorrect assumptions are related to their deep seated anti-Bush prejudices? After all I've never heard people so predisposed to hating a man as Euros are about our former president.
Erm, not really. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on that ship as well. He said that we had prevailed in the Iraq War. Soon after that he said about Iraq "that mission has been accomplished." The "Mission Accomplished" line was also in the initial draft of the aircraft carrier speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished

It's Wikipedia, but the article is pretty well footnoted with reputable sources.

In my opinion, the mistake wasn't the sign, the mistake was declaring the end of major combat operations at that point. Anybody with a modicum of knowledge of pre-Saddam Iraq should have known that was a major mistake.

[August]

Right from the Wiki article: Bush's own words:
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.""Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."Doesn't sound too "over" to me.

As a matter of fact the only part of his entire speech that might support your argument is: "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." but even that is no official indication that the war was being declared "over".

[Aramike]

Yes but wars have military missions. :DSo do many other things.

But what has been happening for the last few years in Iraq can hardly be considered a war in the traditional sense.

[Max2147]

He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."

I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.

[Max2147]

So do many other things.

But what has been happening for the last few years in Iraq can hardly be considered a war in the traditional sense.
There was a pretty wide ranging civil war going on for a while, with lots of different groups fighting each other. Most groups were more intent on attacking each other than going after the US.

That's another reason why the statistic on the Iraq deaths is so misleading. US deaths in Iraq have only been a small portion of the deaths over there. The vast majority of the violent deaths in Iraq since the invasion have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or at least Muslim terrorists killing Iraqis.

[Aramike]

He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."

I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.If the objective of the war was to take Saddam out of power and to remove Iraq as a threat from the world stage, Bush was exactly right - the war had been won.

What happened after that was not much more than terrorism and the policing of it.

In any case, if this really has been a "war" since Bush made his infamous declaration, it probably has the lowest casualty rate per year of any major war in history.

[August]

He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."

I don't see how you get that from what he said: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous". That clearly implies that pacification efforts were still ongoing.

I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.

Well, that's been the whole problem now isn't it?

Who billed it that way? The same people who said that the surge would not work? That the coalition would suffer enormous casualties at the hands of the Republican Guard? That invading Iraq would increase the chances of another 9-11 happening? It's obvious that there was a concerted effort by the media to read negativity into everything that Bush did or said and Mission Accomplished is a prime example of it.

[Max2147]

I don't see how you get that from what he said: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous". That clearly implies that pacification efforts were still ongoing.

Well, that's been the whole problem now isn't it?

Who billed it that way? The same people who said that the surge would not work? That the coalition would suffer enormous casualties at the hands of the Republican Guard? That invading Iraq would increase the chances of another 9-11 happening? It's obvious that there was a concerted effort by the media to read negativity into everything that Bush did or said and Mission Accomplished is a prime example of it.
"Pacification efforts" are very different than outright war, or whatever we've been fighting in Iraq since 2003.

The Bush people were the ones who billed it as the end of the war. At the time, it was seen as a good move. It was supposed to be a triumphant capstone on a quick and easy war. The stigma of the speech and the sign didn't come until several months later.

As far as the casualty rate, US casualties have been low for a war. However, Iraqi civilian/'good guy' casualties have been much higher, although getting any sort of a firm number is impossible. As I said earlier, the violence in Iraq can best be characterized as a civil war, not a US vs. Iraq fight.

[August]

"Pacification efforts" are very different than outright war, or whatever we've been fighting in Iraq since 2003.

So what is the difference, in your opinion, between an outright war and a pacification effort? To me it's all just semantics.

The Bush people were the ones who billed it as the end of the war. At the time, it was seen as a good move. It was supposed to be a triumphant capstone on a quick and easy war. The stigma of the speech and the sign didn't come until several months later.

Wrong, the stigma began immediately and not just the administration but everyone hoped it would be a quick and easy war, except of course our enemies like Iran, but also i'm sad to say Bush's political opposition who couldn't contain their glee at seeing the war effort run into problems.

As far as the casualty rate, US casualties have been low for a war. However, Iraqi civilian/'good guy' casualties have been much higher, although getting any sort of a firm number is impossible.

Higher civilian casualties than what? WW2? Vietnam? the Norman invasion? Civilians die in large numbers in every war and counting them is at best not an exact science and at worst pure fabrication.

[Max2147]

So what is the difference, in your opinion, between an outright war and a pacification effort? To me it's all just semantics.
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians don't die in pacification efforts.

Wrong, the stigma began immediately and not just the administration but everyone hoped it would be a quick and easy war, except of course our enemies like Iran, but also i'm sad to say Bush's political opposition who couldn't contain their glee at seeing the war effort run into problems.
You can't just blame this all on Bush's enemies and say they wanted the war to fail. I'm no fan of Bush's, but my line throughout this is has been that I think the Iraq War was a terrible idea that will be a disaster for the United States, and I truly hope I'm 100% wrong. I think most people who think like me have the same outlook.
Higher civilian casualties than what? WW2? Vietnam? the Norman invasion? Civilians die in large numbers in every war and counting them is at best not an exact science and at worst pure fabrication.
This entire topic was started by a post about how few casualties there have been in Iraq. But when you take civilian casualties into account, even the most conservative estimate give you much higher numbers than the original poster was talking about.

[August]

Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians don't die in pacification efforts.

Um, yes sometimes they do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification

You can't just blame this all on Bush's enemies and say they wanted the war to fail. I'm no fan of Bush's, but my line throughout this is has been that I think the Iraq War was a terrible idea that will be a disaster for the United States, and I truly hope I'm 100% wrong. I think most people who think like me have the same outlook.

I don't blame it all on Bush's enemies. The administration failed to plan for the worst possible scenario and although hindsight is 20-20 they should have known better.

This entire topic was started by a post about how few casualties there have been in Iraq. But when you take civilian casualties into account, even the most conservative estimate give you much higher numbers than the original poster was talking about.

Well yes once you include civilian casualties the numbers would indeed go up but are they higher, either in actual numbers or percentages, than other wars of similar size?

I don't have the numbers in front of me but my gut tells me no. No other army that i've read about has ever operated under a more restrictive RoE or made more effort to minimize civilian casualties.

[Max2147]

Um, yes sometimes they do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification
Blimey, I hope you don't think that Bush was talking about THAT sort of pacification!

For what it's worth, I don't think Bush was lying on that carrier deck. I think he honestly thought it was all over bar the shouting. My gripe is that he and those around him should have known better (as you said). Hindsight is nice, but it didn't take a genius in 2003 to know that things were going to fall apart in a big way.

As far as casualties, I wasn't comparing it to previous wars. I was comparing it to public perception, specifically the perceptions that the original poster in this topic used.

Our troops have done an incredible job at keeping civilian casualties in their operations to a minimum, but unfortunately they're not the only ones over there. Most of the casualties came from Iraqis fighting Iraqis or foreign Islamists fighting Iraqis.

[August]

Blimey, I hope you don't think that Bush was talking about THAT sort of pacification!

For what it's worth, I don't think Bush was lying on that carrier deck. I think he honestly thought it was all over bar the shouting. My gripe is that he and those around him should have known better (as you said). Hindsight is nice, but it didn't take a genius in 2003 to know that things were going to fall apart in a big way.

As far as casualties, I wasn't comparing it to previous wars. I was comparing it to public perception, specifically the perceptions that the original poster in this topic used.

Our troops have done an incredible job at keeping civilian casualties in their operations to a minimum, but unfortunately they're not the only ones over there. Most of the casualties came from Iraqis fighting Iraqis or foreign Islamists fighting Iraqis.

Agreed.

[Max2147]

Agreed.
:up: