Interesting fact.....

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by stephen_clapton, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. stephen_clapton

    stephen_clapton New Member

    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 per month.

    The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons per month.

    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 immediately.
  2. on_castors

    on_castors Member

    Oddly enough the conclusion those statistics suggest to me (whether they are accurate or not is another matter) that sending the entire population of Washington DC to Iraq would be wiser!

    This war was wrong in the first case, is wrong now, and we should not have been involved, if for no other reason than that it is none of our business, and there are other matters we as a country have chosen not to get involved in, so why THIS one! (No, don't answer that, it is a RHETORICAL question)

    The gunshot statistics seem somewhat irrelevant given that so many think this and always have!
  3. BigHorn

    BigHorn Active Member

    But 92.675% of statistics are a load of rubbish :wink:

    But your logic is flawed any way, if 150,000 soldiers were pulled out leaving just 10,000 iraqi soldiers and the deaths (which are nearly all due to iraqi inter-faction violence ) remained about the same, then it would be 60 per 10,000 soldiers which is about a 8 times higher death rate than Washington.

    Also if we send a million more soldiers over the death rate per soldier would really tumble.
    So by your own logic we should send more soldiers.
  4. DaveR

    DaveR Active Member

    I suspect from the last line of Steve's post that this might have been a tongue-in-cheek posting! :rolleyes:
  5. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    This wasn't mine originally, and I know the logic is flawed in various ways, but it is still thought-provoking.

    By the way, are you sending the extra troops into Iraq or Washington :?: :shock: ;-)
  6. kierendinno

    kierendinno Member

    Obviously that is a question that does require an answer if 'so many' think that Iraq was wrong. I would suggest the reason THIS country decided to get involved in Iraq was the same reason THIS country decided to go to war after Germany invaded Poland- because it was the right thing to do.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Just remember that it is a decision which we will never have to make. Whatever your opinions on the issue, this is a decision that had to be made. We could have stood by and done nothing, but it wasn't up to us, it was up to the Government this country re-elected in 2005. I would suggest that the fact the same government is still in power demonstrates opinion on the subject.
  7. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    . . . or, alternatively, that

    a) under our system of government, they were able to take the initial decision without even a proper debate in parliament


    b) under that same system of government, the electorate has not any opportunity to chage the make-up of the Houe of Commons other than a couple of bi-elections
  8. jmb83

    jmb83 Member

    Exactly! We live in a voted-for dictatorship, we vote then get told what to do for the next (upto) 5 years
  9. Jan H

    Jan H Moderator Staff Member

    According to this website:
    the firearm death rate of Washington DC was 26.9 per 100.000. It doesn't say clearly if this is per month or per year, but the most logical explanation (when you look at other data on the site) would be that is is 26.9 firearm deaths per 100.000 per year or 2.2 per month (for a city of 500.000 inhabitants)

    Still a looong way behind Iraq...

    Unfortunately it's not only the bush administration that's spreading misinformation, so don't believe everything that ends up in your e-mail box...
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  10. on_castors

    on_castors Member

    That is comparing fleas to elephants. Two entirely different animals.

    Very refreshing to find someone other than Tony Blair who STILL thinks it was the right thing to do. Certainly my circle of contacts and acquaintances does not have this view!

    Indeed hindsight is wonderful, and had I the benefit of that I would STILL be of the same opinion as I was then. Had what we know now been known then, that hinsdight tells me that we would not be in this position as there would have been almost zero support for the war.
  11. kierendinno

    kierendinno Member

    The electorate had the opportunity in the 2005 General Election, two years after the Iraq war began, to show their public opposition to the war. As it is, Tony Blair remains Prime Minister with a Labour Government.

    If we knew then what we know now I am assured that the government would not have acted differently. I feel safer knowing that a very dangerous man is no longer running a country which had the potential to create havoc in that region and across the world.

    Also, how are we living in a 'voted-for' dictatorship? Indeed, one party has power (an overall majority of MP'S) and the leader of that party is the most important person in Government, but I would not call it a dictatorship. There still exists 658 other MP's other than the Prime Minister, who are crucial to the decision making process. Again, this Government has been re-elected 3 times- hardly an easy thing to do. If people were that opposed to Iraq, we would now have a hung-parliment or a Conservative government. As it is, we don't.
  12. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    This always staggers me. If so many people are really so upset at the fact we went to war in Iraq, why are we still led by the same democratically elected government?

    It says to me that although people may think it was wrong, they still saw the present Government as the best option at the time of election.

    or was it a complete lack of morals on behalf of the electorate? "Well I don't agree with the war but I won't vote tory, so Mr Bliar it is again".
  13. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    Unfortunately when you get your opportunity every 5 years to vote at a general election it's never a one point issue - you have to consider all the other stuff that maybe has more effect on you as an individual e.g. tax, crime, schools, health, etc. Generally when it comes down to an either or decision how many people think well I quite like the way this party or other would run the country but I feel so strongly about something that's happening x000 miles away that I'll vote for the other party just to show my disapproval of what Mr Blair did.
  14. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    I would suggest that the last and this current government have indeed operated a quasi-dictatorship - MPs very rarely get a "free" vote on any topic they have to follow the party line; that's why the have Whips in each party. The labour majority at the last election was substantially reduced and Mr Blair has lost a few votes over recent months - probably more to do with his imminent resignation - it will be interesting to see what the electorate think when there is a new leader of the Labour party to vote for at the next election and whether he can abstract himself from the Iraq debacle.
  15. Tom-King

    Tom-King Well-Known Member

    You mean, had we known then what we know now - not had Tony Bliar known then what he still knows now?
    ~(That is, that there arent, and never were, any WOMD)~
  16. kierendinno

    kierendinno Member

    We did not go to war with Iraq because om WMD, we went because they [Iraq] were in continual breach of UN Resolutions- WMD was only a part of that. The fact that the intellegence was flawed is not Mr Blairs fault is it? I mean, he can only go on the information is given.

    The majority Labour currently have is indeed smaller, but still more than enough to keep the Government afloat. And still very difficult for 'Dave' to overcome.

    MP's are made to follow the party line as it was in the party's name that they were elected. Obviously, if they stood as Independant MP's and then elected as Independant, then they would have the right to a free vote. But if you are a Labour MP, or a Tory one, you were elected under the party's manifesto- the reason why party's have Whips is to ensure the Members vote the way for which they were elected. Elections are usually held every 4 years (but can be up to 5, a stunt which Mr Major pulled in the hope he could somehow ressurect his party)- If there is a better system of Government I would love to hear it.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  17. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    Proportional representation?
  18. kierendinno

    kierendinno Member

    I have long thought PR would offer a more representative Parliament- but, given the fact that Labour were elected with a 36% share of the vote, and the tories not that far behind, there would almost always be hung-parliaments- Nothing would ever get done and also, it would give parties like the BNP a greater voice in Parliament and would give even more media oxygenation of their hate-filled policies. They could end up gaining huge support. Sorry to go back to the Nazi Germany point again, but if the Weimar Republic (Germany) had adopted a similar electoral system to ours, it is very unlikely that the Nazi party would have flourished in the early 30's. PR gives the fringe parties more of a say and a circulates their policies on a National scale, which feed on the fears and ignorance of others- a situation which nobody wants.

    I agree, there are flaws in our system, but it has always prduced a strong government, which is good for everybody. Or at least in my opinion.
  19. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    If you want to read what Mr Blair actually said try here

    and he's a partial abstract

    "In 1991 at the conclusion of the Gulf War, the true extent of Saddam's WMD programme became clear. We knew he had used these weapons against his own people, and against a foreign country, Iran, but we had not known that in addition to chemical weapons, he had biological weapons which he had denied completely and was trying to construct a nuclear weapons programme.

    So on 3 April 1991, the UN passed the first UN Resolution on Saddam and WMD, giving him 15 days to give an open account of all his weapons and co-operate fully with the UN inspectors in destroying them. 15days later he submitted a flawed and incomplete declaration denying he had biological weapons and giving little information on chemical weapons. It was only four years later after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered .

    The intelligence is clear: he continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. It is essential to his regional power. Prior to the inspectors coming back in he was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of the weapons.
    That is the history. Finally last November UN Resolution 1441 declared Saddam in material breach and gave him a "final opportunity" to comply fully immediately and unconditionally with the UN's instruction to disarm voluntarily. The first step was to give an open, honest declaration of what WMD he had, where it was and how it would be destroyed. On 8 December he submitted the declaration denying he had any WMD, a statement not a single member of the international community seriously believes. Is it not reasonable that Saddam provides evidence of destruction of the biological and chemical agents and weapons the UN proved he had in 1999? So far he has provided none.

    Is it not reasonable that he provides evidence that he has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax that he admitted possessing, and the 2,000 kilos of biological growth material, enough to produce over 26,000 litres of anthrax?
    Is it not reasonable that Saddam accounts for up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1½ tonnes of VX nerve agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and over 30,000 special munitions?
    To those who say we are rushing to war, I say this. We are now 12 years after Saddam was first told by the UN to disarm; nearly 6 months after President Bush made his speech to the UN accepting the UN route to disarmament; nearly 4 months on from Resolution 1441; and even now today we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN.
    I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.
    I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation.
    12 years of bitter experience teaches that. And if he refuses to co-operate - as he is refusing now and we fail to act, what then? Saddam in charge of Iraq, his WMD intact, the will of the international community set at nothing, the UN tricked again, Saddam hugely strengthened and emboldened - does anyone truly believe that will mean peace? And when we turn to deal with other threats, where will our authority be? And when we make a demand next time, what will our credibility be? This is not a road to peace but folly and weakness that will only mean the conflict when it comes is more ******, less certain and greater in its devastation.
    Our path laid out before the UN expresses our preference to resolve this peacefully; but it ensures we remain firm in our determination to resolve it.
    I have read the memorandum put forward by France, Germany and Russia in response to our UN Resolution. It is to be welcomed at least in these respects. It accepts that Saddam must disarm fully. And it accepts that he is not yet co-operating fully. Indeed not a single member of the EU who spoke at the Summit in Brussels on 17 February disputed the fact of his non-co-operation.
    But the call is for more time, up to the end of July at least. They say the time is necessary "to search out" the weapons. At the core of this proposition is the notion that the task of the inspectors is to enter Iraq to find the weapons, to sniff them out as one member of the European Council put it. That is emphatically not the inspectors' job. They are not a detective agency. And even if they were, Iraq is a country with a land mass roughly the size of France. The idea that the inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons and documentation relating to them without the help of the Iraqi authorities is absurd. That is why 1441 calls for Iraq's active co-operation.
    The issue is not time. It is will. If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate then the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July; as much time as they want. If he is not willing to co-operate then equally time will not help. We will be just right back where we were in the 1990s.
    And, of course, Saddam will offer concessions. This is a game with which he is immensely familiar. As the threat level rises, so the concessions are eked out. At present he is saying he will not destroy the Al-Samud missiles the inspectors have found were in breach of 1441. But he will, under pressure, claiming that this proves his co-operation. But does anyone think that he would be making any such concessions, that indeed the inspectors would be within a 1,000 miles of Baghdad, were it not for the US and UK troops massed on his doorstep? And what is his hope? To play for time, to drag the process out until the attention of the international community wanes, the troops go, the way is again clear for him.
    Give it more time, some urge on us. I say we are giving it more time. But I say this too: it takes no time at all for Saddam to co-operate. It just takes a fundamental change of heart and mind.
    Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament.
    One further point. The purpose in our acting is disarmament. But the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, WMD in the hands of a regime of this brutality is especially dangerous because Saddam has shown he will use them."

    Perhaps there was a very good reason why he didn't disarm or declare his WMD - he didn't have any.
  20. kierendinno

    kierendinno Member

    Indeed, but Saddam's refusal to allow in inspectors to check for WMD was a violation of UN Resolutions, the reason we invaded Iraq.

Share This Page