Originally Posted by hevusa

No, ALL of Iraq is less dangerous than New Orleans.

If you compare Baghdad to New Orleans, Baghdad is more dangerous by several hundred percent.

This is just more right wing propaganda.

Originally Posted by alias

Okay. All of Iraq is less dangerous then New Orleans. I agree. How come we never heard about the violence in New Orleans or Washington D.C. if they are more dangerous than Iraq?

Originally Posted by hevusa

I have lived within 45 minutes of DC most of my life. People are very aware that on average 3 people die a night by violent crime.

Saying that all of Iraq is on average safer than a few of our cities is by far the worst apples to oranges use of stats I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by alias

That may be but it's the truth.

Originally Posted by alias

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 complied 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.

http://tinyurl.com/oyaqp

Originally Posted by hevusa

The truth would be comparing all of America to all of Iraq. Or at the very least all of a state versus all of Iraq.

Then you get a fair statistic, one that doesn't dictate that a war zone is safer than a city at "peace".

Originally Posted by alias

What would be more fair is to get the statistics to make Iraq look worse than it really is wouldn't it? That's what you really want.

Originally Posted by hevusa

Since I am advocating a fair comparison... no.

Originally Posted by alias

I gave you a fair comparison and you don't like it. Some American cities are far more dangerous than Iraq. Fact. You have to spin it to make it acceptable to your politics.

Originally Posted by alias

I gave you a fair comparison and you don't like it. Some American cities are far more dangerous than Iraq. Fact. You have to spin it to make it acceptable to your politics.