interesting comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JDSlack

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
155
Location
Miami, FL
What do Los Angeles, Chicago and New York all have in common for 2003?

All three had at least 200 more people murdered than we had GIs killed
in Iraq, while each death's in Iraq is reported on a daily basis, Iraq really is much safer than any of the above US cities. Total murdered in these three cities 1565 people. Total killed in Iraq under hostile fire 364. Total killed weekly during the last year under Democrat President Johnson in Viet Nam was 500 per week so while every death is terrible, every death in this war helps keep the terror off our streets.
 
As for NYC, we can open negotiations with the descendents of the natives we bought it from.

Perhaps they still have that trunkful of trinkets around, and we can get a refund.
 
Well, raw numbers can be deceiving.

The combined populations of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are about 14,600,000 persons. If 1,565 were murdered last year, this gives us an aggregate homicide rate of about 11 per 100,000.

There are about 200,000 American (U.S.) troops deployed in Iraq. If 364 were killed by enemy fire, this gives us an American combat death rate of about 182 per 100,000.

Clearly, it is far more dangerous for Americans serving in Iraq than it is for Americans living in three of the most crime-ridden cities in the U.S. Heavily armed and armored military personnel in Iraq are over 16 times more likely to be killed than are untrained and unarmed civilians in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

~G. Fink
 
Last edited:
Back to the main point of the thread ..... regardless of the stats, major american cities suck for crime rates.

I remember Clinton saying something about the quantity of rapes in Bosnia to justify an "exploration" - something along the lines of 200,000/yr

All the while, we had 2 MILLION american women being raped here.

Perspective, folks, & one can justify anything.

Our own country is awash in mayhem (to a degree), but even in the interest of Homeland Security, we won't allow already trusted pilots to carry a firearm, we won't allow you to protect yourself, there's no mention of protecting one's self - only "call the cops."

JDSlack has a valid post.
 
I remember Clinton saying something about the quantity of rapes in Bosnia to justify an “explorationâ€â€”something along the lines of 200,000/yr

All the while, we had 2 MILLION [A]merican women being raped here.
Click to expand...

Once again, we have to compare apples to apples when looking at these numbers. The U.S. has about 292,400,000 people, while Bosnia-Herzegovina has only 4,200,000. If 2 million American women are raped each year, the annual rate would be 684 rapes per 100,000 people. However, if 200,000 Bosnian women were raped each year during the war, the annual rate would have been a startling 4,761 rapes per 100,000 people. In other words, Bosnian women were nearly seven times more likely to be raped than were American women.

The mean streets of the United States still remain more attractive than foreign war zones.

~G. Fink
 
the people who put out such false comparisons are also our enemy. why would some one put out such a misleading comparison?

I'm not attacking JDS, I bet he saw that somewhere and it got him emotionally. I'd love to know the source so we can question their motives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top