posted January 04, 2007 05:27 PM            

Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate

The Associated Press released an interesting set of statistics (host link stored for future ref) a couple of days ago that I would suppose were designed to suck away any optimism any fools who still support the mission in Iraq might have (bolds are mine):

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Government officials on Monday reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.

The tabulation by the Iraqi ministries of Health, Defense and Interior, showed that 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers were killed in the violence that raged in the country last year.

The Associated Press accounting, gleaned from daily news reports from Baghdad, arrived at a total of 13,738 deaths.

Pretty grim, isn't it? And this is for "violence that raged in the (whole) country."
Man, what a downer. I mean, this is an honest-to-goodness Grade A bona fide quagmire.

Oops -- I started digging into US murder statistics, and what I found made me less depressed about Iraq, and more concerned about the US.

Let's put this in perspective. Below are 10 listings for US cities and years. Your mission to accomplish (so to speak), is to guess whether each particular city's murder rate in the year identified was higher or lower than the "violent death rate" in Iraq (which is, from all appearances, all-inclusive).

Let's use the Iraqi government's higher number of 16,273 just for the heck of it, even though the Associated Press will "surely" be bothered that I'm exaggerating the level of violence compared to what their records show (somehow, I think they'll get over it).

Using the government's figure means that Iraq's violent death rate in 2006 was 56.49 per 100,000 residents (16,273 deaths, and a population per Wiki of 28,807,000).

So here are the US cities and the related years:

1. New York City - 1990
2. Washington, DC - 1991
3. Gary, IN - 2005
4. Detroit, MI - 1991
5. Compton, CA - 2005
6. New Orleans, LA - 2006
7. New Orleans, LA - 2004
8. New Orleans, LA - 2003
9. Atlanta, GA - 1973
10. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004

Try not to peek ahead.
............
Done?

SURPRISE -- Every city and year listed had a higher murder rate than Iraq in 2006 -- except (surprise again) New York City in 1990 (Gotham's worst year on record for murder).

The murder rates were as follows (see related graph at UPDATE 2 below):
***Iraq, 56.49 per 100,000 residents
1. New York City - 1990; 30.7 (2,245 murders; population 7,322,000)
2. Washington, DC - 1991; 83.1 (482 murders; population 598,000 [1])
3. Gary, IN - 2005; 58.0
4. Detroit, MI - 1991; roughly 60
5. Compton, CA - 2005; 67.1
6. New Orleans, LA - 2006; 67.5 (154 murders; population 228,000 [2])
7. New Orleans, LA - 2004; 59.6 (275 murders; population 461,115 [3])
8. New Orleans, LA - 2003; 57.7
9. Atlanta, GA - 1973; 57.7 (271 murders; population 470,000 [1])
10. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004; 63.4

Does this mean Iraq is a walk in the park? Of course not.
Does this mean that Iraq is a hopeless quagmire that cannot be won? It would appear, at a minimum, that anyone who believes that carries a heavy burden of proof.

And to personalize it, dear reader, unless you've gone on record in favor of abandoning the residents of the cities listed above to their own devices at the times they were (or are) extremely dangerous places to be, it would seem that you have no basis for contending that we should do that to the people of Iraq.

(Aside: Yes, I know I didn't excerpt the last paragraph about the UN claiming that "100 die each day." Give me a break -- The UN is winging it with no support. And besides, I thought AP, despite Jamil "Captain Tuttle" Hussein, is the gold standard in reporting. Dear reader, you wouldn't be getting cold feet about AP, would you?)
__________________________
UPDATE: Oh, you say that the deaths are concentrated in just a few areas in Iraq? Fine. That sounds like a concession that the large majority of the country is very safe (which is indeed the case), just as in most of the cities above, a majority of the neighborhoods are, with a couple of exceptions, considered safe.

So ..... what's your point again?

UPDATE 2: Here are the results shown graphically, with the AP's lower Iraq death rate of 47.7 per 100,000 thrown in for good measure –

posted January 04, 2007 05:34 PM              

now, if we figure in karma..and what is happening..and the astrological birthdays of Iraq and the United States, what does it show?

I think it will show, you get what you give...

Katrina, was probably only the beginning
of the mess, we will see here in the U.S.

posted January 04, 2007 05:56 PM              

First of all Iraq's violence is almost all concentrated in central Iraq (Baghdad Basra and the central Iraqi cities). The north and the south are more peaceful than before because the Kurds etc have been given their say in govt. But central Iraq where Sunnis and Shiites are majority (together) there has been outbreak. What people dont understand is that simply look at the history of Iraq. There can be an Iraq without the Kurds or the northern or southern extremities, yes there can. But there can NEVER be an Iraq without baghdad and the central areas united.

It is not so much the numbers and percentages that count in this case as the location of the crimes.

Also you must compare to crime rates before the war. Simply comparing to the US is a fallacy. MOST Arab nations have lesser crime rates than the US because of their stringent punishment laws (Saudi cuts off hands, and does public hangings and stonings). They have an almost zero crime rate. In that case one would expect you to 'applaud' saddam Jw because virtually the only crimes going on during his regime were his own, and over the stretch of that many years that he was dictator, well, thats not a very high 'rate'.

posted January 04, 2007 06:26 PM            

Surprise, it's Iran who has been funding and fanning both sides of the so called insurgency which is in reality terrorism pure and simple and they are terrorists..pure and simple.

The goal of Iran IS to overthrow the results of the Iraqi elections by inciting a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis.

Now, how cynical is that? How does that square with Islamic principles. Muslims killing Muslims for the benefit of yet a 3rd Muslim group...Iran?

And how does that square with the iron clad guarantees coming from the naysayers of the Iraq war that bin Laden would never, never ever have linked up with Saddam Hussein to attack the US with WMD..which Saddam was believed to have?

All such guarantees, all the ducking bobbing and weaving to keep Saddam in power were pure unadulterated bullsh*t..of course.

Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007 11:56 a.m. EST
U.S. Finds Iran's 'Smoking Gun' in Iraq

American forces have found a "smoking gun” that proves Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq — captured Iranian documents showing the country is abetting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists.

News that U.S. forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was reported in December. But now it’s come to light that the Iranians were carrying documents revealing their country’s activities in Iraq. An American intelligence official confirmed that Shiite Iran "is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups,” The New York Sun reported in an article headlined "Iran’s Secret Plan for Mayhem.”

The documents disclosed how the Quds Force — Iran’s elite revolutionary guard unit that supports Shiite Hezbollah and Shiite death squads — also supports individuals associated with al-Qaida in Iraq and the Sunni terror group Ansar al-Sunna.

Another U.S. official, who termed the captured documents a "smoking gun,” said: "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys — a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to.”

According to the Sun, one document concludes that "Iraq’s Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.”

News that the Quds Force is actively supporting Sunni terrorists could threaten the close ties between Iraq’s ruling Shiites and Tehran. But U.S. policy-makers should be mindful of the new revelations that Iran is supporting Sunnis in Iraq as well as Shiites, according to Wayne White, a former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran.

posted January 04, 2007 06:43 PM            

The MSM reports hourly on the violence in Iraq. Iraq is a quagmire they intone without reporting that the vast majority of Iraq is more safe..much more safe than parts of US cities.

So, the question becomes, what to do about US cities? Should we...as radical leftist democrats demand for Iraq..abandon those cities and their residents to the violent murderers there and withdraw police forces?

Should we attempt to have a dialogue with them...as radical leftist democrats demand we do with the Islamic terrorists?

Should we attempt to engage the United Nations to mediate between the barbarians in some of our cities and civilized society?

These are some of the questions which arise naturally when the US main stream press goes on a jihad against the US and slants the news, underreports the good while over-reporting the bad and fails to distinguish between what's good and what's bad. This gives everyone the impression there's nothing good.

That's perfectly in line with the leftist political agenda of the press and leftist radicals of the democrat party to have the US withdraw and hand the terrorists a victory.

posted January 04, 2007 06:57 PM              

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted January 04, 2007 07:27 PM            

On D Day, June 6, 1944, the US and our allies in WWII suffered more than 50,000 casualties in the opening 2 days of the invasion of Normandy to free Europe from the grip of Nazi Germany.

Should we not have?

We lost 407,300 US soldiers in the Second World War to put down a socialist dictator, Hitler and an expansionist Japan which attacked the United States.

Should we not have?

You cite the deaths of 3000 US military forces in Iraq to depose another socialist dictator, Saddam Hussein and assist the Iraqi people to a representative government.

I suspect you think we shouldn't have.

Here's a question for you.

How many US military deaths are you or were you prepared to lose when war came later at the time of Saddam's choosing or Iran's choosing AFTER they had time to build their military arsenals perhaps including nuclear weapons?

50,000,000 to 60,000,000...those are Millions...lost their lives in World War Two because Europe attempted to appease Hitler and gave him time to build his military arsenal and attack at the time of HIS choosing.