Interesting Statistics
I just received this from a colleague:
There has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations in the last 22 months, with a total of 2,112 deaths.
This gives a death rate ratio of 60 deaths per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. for the same period was 80.6 per 100,000.
It therefore follows that you are approximately 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol than in Iraq, even though Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the nation .
3 comments:
How many Iraqi deaths? Or do thoe deaths not count in your total? Is the life of an Iraqi so insignificant that is does not even warrant being a statistic? Forget arguing how many of those were innocent "casualties of war", thats another matter altogether. So if you count the Iraqi deaths ...what does that average come out to.
If your statistic for Washington was the number of deaths per 100,000 cops in that city..MAYBE..you could compare the two.
Aside from taking something that was obviously meant tongue-in-cheek seriously, I think you missed a major point.
In the big picture, of course Iraqi deaths count and comparing them to deaths in Washington would show being in Iraq is far worse than being in Washington.
But you've missed a major, if subtle, point. We're not looking at the big picture. Rather we're looking at this from a strictly American perspective -- which is very different from the global picture.
Therefore I would argue that America is mostly concerned about American deaths in Iraq (I know many Americans are concerned about Iraqi deaths too, but I really don't think that the "War in Iraq" would be so problematic for Bush if there were twice the Iraqi deaths and zero American ones -- my feeling is that Americans would not be calling for their troops to be pulled out but rather celebrating what a great job they're doing over there wiping out terrorism with no American casulties).
So from the U.S. perspective, there are more Americans dying in Washington than in Iraq (if you assume those dying in Washington are Americans).
And that's what's really being said here. Of course the underlying meaning is masked by humour.
If you choose to take it literally you could go on and on about the many other reasons why the U.S. cannot pull out of Washington, just as you could go on and on about why Iraqi deaths are not insignificant.
My Dear Anonymous Friends:
Please note the disclaimer I added at the beginning. I have not verified the numbers and in no way support or deny them. It was just something that caught my attention so I posted it.
Let's segue over and focus on Afghanistan. As I trust you know, Canada has a few thousand troops there. Canada is clearly not trying to take over the country, is clearly not there to steal any oil, or anything of the like. We are there to try to help bring peace and order to the citizens of the country. Our efforts are helping schools and hospitals get built, keeping girls from being stoned to death at a soccer stadium, and giving some hope to a future democratic and stable society. That's all a good thing, isn't it?
Yet, with a few dozens Canadian soldiers being killed, so many in my country are demanding an immediate withdrawal. The most vocal of them is NDP leader, Jack Layton.
I would love for Mr. Layton to go over to Afghanistan and say this directly to the Canadian soldiers. While there, I'd love for him to go up to a crowd of Afghani citizens and repeat something similar, which is: "We do not care about you. I know that if the NATO soldiers leave that the oppressive Taliban will come back here and make your lives miserable once again. But we do not care."
If he and others of his ilk would say this, then at least they would stop being the hypocrits that they now so clearly are.
Post a Comment