Friday, October 03, 2008

Which Has More Violent Deaths, DC, Baghdad or New Orleans?

One of the major benchmarks for US success or failure in Iraq is the rate of violent deaths in that country particularly in Baghdad.
Engram at BackTalk lays it out in straight, no-nonsense numbers and facts, no spin required or given.
Baghdad is now safer than Washington DC when comparing the murder rate in DC to the violent death rate in Baghdad.

That's not to say that if the US immediately pulled out of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not ramp up the killing in a big way, because they would. What it does speak to is the fact that we are winning in a big way and the democrats dream of lowering troop numbers is now becoming a reality just as George W Bush predicted, when conditions on the ground warrant it and not a minute before.

Like it or not, Bush was right in the end.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Otter said...

All the more reason to shift our attention away from Iraq and back into our own country.

5:30 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

That statement shows your lack of understanding... i'm sorry.
You are advocating bringing all our military home to police the streets of Washington DC, New Orleans and Gary Indiana.

Fighting crime in New Orleans and fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq are worlds apart.. no pun intended. I know you think Islamic throat-cutting fascists are just cute little misunderstood and mischievous criminals who, if left alone would mind their own business.. but you would be wrong on that assumption. (according to their words and their actions...not mine)

Fighting the war and fighting crime are not "either-or" options.
We must and will do both as a nation... we will do that so that people like you can live in a pretend land where your life isn't better than you think and that your own country is your worst enemy and the rest of the world knows best.
keep your fingers in your ears and scream la la la la... while the rest of us try and keep you safe and sound.

12:11 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

And your statement shows a lack of knowing what I am talking about.

I am not advocating bringing the military home to police the streets. I am, however, advocating some major cuts in the defense budget so that the money saved can be spent fighting crime and worrying more about what is going on in our own streets than what is going on in the streets tens of thousands of miles from our borders.

I never said that the Islamic terrorists were misunderstood and mischievciou, again you pull crap out of thin air. I said, very simply, they are criminals. I put no modifiers to that. Criminals. That is it. And what I am saying is not that if we left them alone they would mind their own business. I am saying and have said that if we would have minded our own business in the FIRST place, they would not have gotten the support structure that they do now.

At at this point in history we can NOT do both. We have spent entirely too much of our money on the war effort that we have nothing left to spend on crime fighting. Adn whatever might have been leftover got stolen by the bad lenders this weekend anyway.

And now........"while the rest of us try and keep you safe and sound." What?!? Now, you are saying that YOU are keeping me safe? That is interesting. I didn't realize that you personally were fighting the war. No matter though. I still have not gotten an answer from you about what the military has done in its entire history (War of Independence excluded) that has kept me and the rest of the country safe? You keep dodging the question.

6:39 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

okay otter, let me take these one at a time here for ya'...

"I am, however, advocating some major cuts in the defense budget so that the money saved can be spent fighting crime..."

okay otter, you propose firing the military and hiring the same number of policemen... all they did was change uniforms... so what i said above is true.

"At at this point in history we can NOT do both. We have spent entirely too much of our money on the war effort that we have nothing left to spend on crime fighting. Adn whatever might have been leftover got stolen by the bad lenders this weekend anyway.

First this just not accurate, not one police force is claiming to be severely underfunded...in fact they get the latest and best equipment money can buy and their pay is appropriate and most towns have more cops than they need and have to set up speed traps just to pay the bills of their overstaffed departments.. especially since 9-11. I know this, i have served on town councils and seen how towns always vote to increase fire and police... you are just wrong about that my friend. What do you want a policeman on every corner and in every business and in every school, library, grocery store?

And on the housing fannie and freddie fiasco... look no further than your democrat friends on that one buddy.. from Barney Frank to Obama himself.. they are filthy dirty and responsible for the entire program... dating back to it's origins in the Clinton Admin.

and finally,
yes... by electing george w bush and supporting our military while those on your side called them every name in the book while they were fighting to protect YOUR ultimate freedom... yes, we on the right voted to protect you on the left from further attacks on our country... we support listening to phone calls to/from terrorists.. and I ask you... have we been attacked?
NO.
Have they tried?... YES.
On behalf of those who prevented it by one of those who supports them preventing it...your welcome.
-red

11:46 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

Well, you are once again putting your own spin on my thoughts.

I did not propose firing soldiers and hiring the same # of policemen. Those are your made up words about what I said. It is not true. I said...and I quote myself.."I advocate some major cuts in the defense budget so that the money saved can be spent fighting crime..." I did not necessarily say that more policemen on the streets is the best way to fight crime. You can do a lot of things with the same number of personnel without hiring new beat cops. Besides, if someone is released from military duty and decides, on their own, to apply for the police department..more power to him (or her). There are big differences between the military and the police. The least of which is their prescribed duties. It is not merely a "change of uniform."

And where are you getting your information that "not one police force is claiming to be severly underfunded?" Where exactly are you reading that? I have read several times in the past few years about underfunded police forces. In fact, I have lived in areas where they are essentially begging more people to join the police force because they are understaffed and underequipped but cannot because they do not have the funds to spend anymore on their police budget. Congratulations that you got to live in areas that were not affected.

And lastly, I am only going to ask this one more time and then I am giving up.

How....how...is the military protecting MY freedom? How? They are thousands of miles away fighting a foreign civil war in a foreign country. They are not protecting me or my freedoms? If anybody is really doing that, if anybody is keeping our country safe from attack, I applaud..oh, let me take a pick. I think I will go with the FBI. Wild guess there. It is certainly NOT the armed forces.

And again, why are YOU welcoming me? What have you done, personally?

12:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home