DescentBB

heres on interesting statistic I found recently

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: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Should just build a big wall around Washington and let them kill themselves off.

Linky on that stat, I've got to see it

ccb056 wrote:Linky on that stat, I've got to see it

X2. Inquiring minds want to know.

Area of Iraq: 168,754.443 sq mi (approx.)
Area of DC: 68.3 sq mi
Average area of the surface of a puddle of dog ★■◆●: 0.00000002 sq mi (approx.)

Chance of stepping in puddle of dog ★■◆● in Iraq: 1.8894022 * 10^-13

Change of stepping in puddle of dog ★■◆● in D.C.: 4.66830184 * 10^-10

Conclusion: You are 2,470.78247 times more likely to step in dog ★■◆● in D.C. than Iraq.

<-- ★■◆●-eating grin

seems a litle bit off topic there, but what you suggest is that there is only one dog turd in each area ?

seems unlikely but im sure if your eyesight is really poor you could still manage to step in it :p

The dog turd thing is kind of screwey

The savages over in Iraq eat dog for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; so the chances of actually finding a living dog are alot lower, much less dog turds.

/me senses a bit of sarcasm in this thread...

At the risk of playing into sarcasm, you are comparing apples to oranges. The first statistic is about a subset of people (soldiers) whereas the second statistic is more broad (people living in Washington D.C.). The more correct comparison would be comparing the first statistic to the number of law enforcement officers killed in D.C., or conversely the total fatalities in Iraq - civilian soldier and otherwise - versus the second statistic.

the civilian body count in iraq so far from the us led military intervention wasnt innitially counted because

1) its hard to tell
2) its quite embarassing

the current total is thought to be somewhere between

56640 and 62362 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

if you take that into account then admitedly the number of people that 100,000 soldiers kill a month is nearer 1.5-2000 per 100,000 soldiers. this is quite a shame considering about 98% of all the people killed are herby civilians

Better us killing them over there than them killing us over here.

I think the true number killed in Iraq since the illegal US invasion is well over 200,000 in fact.

Illegal Mobi? The UN had a resolution that authorised it. Take some memory enhancement pills.

There's a long stretch between issuing a \"final opportunity to comply\" (UNSC Resolution 1441) and our invasion and subsequent occupation of a country. At least I presume you are talking about 1441 since it was the last directive passed regarding Iraq before the invasion.

If I am wrong, then by all means, point out the resolution that authorized an invading force, because I'm not finding it.

Kyouryuu wrote:There's a long stretch between issuing a "final opportunity to comply" (UNSC Resolution 1441) and our invasion and subsequent occupation of a country. At least I presume you are talking about 1441 since it was the last directive passed regarding Iraq before the invasion.

If I am wrong, then by all means, point out the resolution that authorized an invading force, because I'm not finding it.

Isn't a "final opportunity to comply" supposed to represent a deadline, a 'submit to our will or else' kind of ultimatum? And wasn't military intervention the understood threat behind their ultimatum?
What the hell does "final opportunity to comply" mean if not an ultimatum?!?

Everybody knew what it meant. It meant that an army was going to come in there by force and see for themselves what he had!
If the Security Council members had done their job instead of taking bribes from Saddam he either would have believed we were coming in and submitted before the army came in there or he would have at least been protected by the U.N. as soon as he submitted after the invasion took place.
He bribed Security Council members to keep the army out - the Council didn't deliver - the U.S. forced the issue - and because the Council fell down on the job the U.S., Britain and Australia were able to run the show without U.N. interference.
It made for a quick unfettered inspection and for a messy aftermath leaving the U.N. with no authority to control the results! Or at least they didn't bother to try. You didn't see them issuing new resolutions to save Saddam's life or return the authority of Iraq over to any particular entity did you? then again, who would have backed up those new resolutions if they had bothered to issue any? And who would even believe their could possibly be any repercussions at all to not obeying them?

What the hell good are they really?
The U.N. Security Council is a useless body. Their opinion has been reduced to hot air in a desert breeze.

\"Everyone knew what it meant.\"

Alright, an army was going to come and see for themselves. A plausible repercussion. No disagreement with that. So, how do we start? Blow up the suspected sites? That's one answer. Blow up some government buildings? Seems feasible.

In fact, that seems like everything up to \"Mission Accomplished.\"

Now tell me how we get to becoming an occupying force that removed Hussein's regime outright and now plays referee in a war largely between religious sects?

Perhaps you see it as a natural corollary. I'm afraid I fail to see it that way. So what is all of this piffle that occurred after \"Mission Accomplished\" about?