Civilians Death Rate in Iraq Less Than in Washington, DC

Someone check me on this... Does Set seem to be channeling Momma Angel?

The point isn't whether it is or is not alright to "keep on in Iraq." The point is that the picture presented by some liberals, indicating that civilians are being slaughtered left and right is simply wrong. The fact that the death rate in place A is lower than in place B doesn't mean that the deaths in A are alright, it means that the death rate in A is lower than in B.

oopsie

Quote:

2) According to Pentagon's own data released today, there have been 94 violent casualties per day in Iraq between February and May of 2006. (see p.33). That translates into 34,310 deaths per year in Iraq. For an Iraqi population of about 26.7 million, plus another 150,000 coalition forces, the violent casualty rate in Iraq is 128 deaths per 100,000.

Quote:

1) The King report uses 2002 data for Washington, D.C., finding a violent casualty rate of 45.9 deaths per 100,000 people. That number is badly outdated. Using the most recent 2004 data, the violent casualty rate in D.C. is 35.8 deaths per 100,000. There were 198 homicides total in D.C. for the entire year.

Quote:

3) 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."

It was a nice effort, til someone looked at his numbers.

I wonder where Mr. King did his degree in statistics.

Numbers are actually harder to mess with than he thinks.

~~~~~~~~~

the source for my info - the usual suspects - as was Brandon's. (I also get newsmax updates)

And if my sneers do withstand?

I'm just wondering how long you'll keep it up. The rest of us realized that the horse was dead pages ago.

You think I'm an egregious, sneering jerk; I think you're an overinflated boob with a ruler in his rectum.

Shall we have a poll?

My point was not that it's valid because comparison is possible. My point was that the mere fact that the death rates are in the same neighborhood [..]

JustanObserver wrote:

This bears repeating. Brandon posted an article that is based on false and misleading information. That bullsh*t argument was promptly shot down with credible information, and what's the best he can follow up with? That somehow, the mere ability to compare the information makes his argument more valid (or should I say..."less false").

I posted the article, because it seems to support my position - period.

Your excursion into Brandon's credentials as a physicist was unnecessary and unsubstantiated.

Others have contributed cogent criticisms which have shredded the contentions embodied in the original post. All you've done is flung turds at other members.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point was not that it's valid because comparison is possible. My point was that the mere fact that the death rates are in the same neighborhood [..]

That was, however, not actually the point you were making when you started this thread - in your initial posts.

Your point back then, after all, was merely to restate the article's assertion of "The fact that the death rate in place A [Iraq] is lower than in place B [DC]".

That "fact", of course, was none at all; the numbers were swiftly debunked.

You only reverted to this "point" once the initial assertion turned out to be false - although of course, you have refused to actually acknowledge that, preferring to instead pretend you were saying something else all along. Which is kinda childish.

In any case, as for the numbers allegedly being "in the same neighbourhood" - your new "point" - I wouldnt, myself, particularly consider 36 deaths per 100,000 (the most recent number for DC) "in the same neighbourhood" as an annual rate of 128 per 100,000, which would be the number you'd get extrapolating from the number of violent casualties per day in Iraq between February and May of 2006.

36 in fact is not even particularly "in the same neighbourhood" as 49-54 per 100,000 - which is the number you get for the past three years in Iraq counting only the casualties directly related to the war - in itself just a subset of the total rate of violent death.

So your new point doesnt seem to be much of a point either.

Brandon9000 wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:

This bears repeating. Brandon posted an article that is based on false and misleading information. That bullsh*t argument was promptly shot down with credible information, and what's the best he can follow up with? That somehow, the mere ability to compare the information makes his argument more valid (or should I say..."less false").

I posted the article, because it seems to support my position - period.

It may have seemed to support your position when you first read it; but its numbers have notedly been debunked here since. So no, the article doesn't seem to support your position anymore - not that of "the death rates [being] in the same neighborhood".

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point was not that it's valid because comparison is possible. My point was that the mere fact that the death rates are in the same neighborhood belies the typical liberal image of civilians being killed left and right.

Do I read that right? In one breath you are admitting that the comparison is not valid. In the next you continue to assert that the article has some kind of meaning beyond being bad prose.


Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.

No, you are not reading it correctly, which is odd, since it isn't very complicated. I am saying that even the fact that the Iraqi civilian death rate is in the same ballpark as the murder rate in some American, cities belies the notion, often presented by some liberals, that Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered like cattle.