What does the anti-war crowd think of this?
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 02:53 PM
Lighteningrodd
It would appear the Democrats would not want to infringe on the rights of the criminals in the cities they govern. Where Iraq is concerned, it seems they would rather let the insurgents take over than to allow a duly elected government have its chance.
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 03:13 PM
DorianGreyed
I guess you guys don't pay attention to US events except those that you see make Democrats look bad. The National Guard and the 82nd Airborne pulled out of Detroit in 1967, having served honorably.
By the way, they didn't find any WMDs there, either. But there were a lot of Moslems.
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 04:09 PM
aminator2002
1. Iraq is not our country.


2. Detroit is a national shame if you ask me... not one that can be blamed on the Democrats though. Blame racism, hatred, bigotry, single industry demographics... but not the political party. And as DG points out... it was abandoned years ago. Ever been there?

3. The arguments against the war have never been based on there being casualties. It's the reasoning behind sending our troops there to fight that has been argued.

I don't personally agree that this mother of a fallen soldier should get any more press than anyone else, but a lot of Americans want to know just what in the heck we are doing over there since the whole WMD's was a crock. I think Bush should speak up and splain hisself.
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 05:51 PM
methos
Casualties are not the prime reason we shouldn't have gone there. That said, the comparison to a hypothetical amalgam of Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia is horribly flawed.

Apples and oranges

Problems:

No comparison of population sizes is made. (I don't know which is bigger (although I suspect it is Iraq), but that the author didn't bother to find out should tell you something about how well this comparison was thought through).

The total violent deaths in those cities are given (police, innocents, and criminals), but only the coalition military deaths are given (not the civilians, not the insurgents, and not even the Iraqi police or military deaths) Iraqi police/military deaths are over 1,600 just since January (about 3,000 total). Iraqi civilian deaths are harder to pin down, but there have been about 25,000 that were reported by multiple media outlets with enough information to prevent double-counting, and there are some estimates that this greatly undercounts the deaths.

When those cities start losing nearly 4,000 police and tens of thousands of civilians in a bit more than 2 year period, I'll say a comparison to Iraq is apt. Until then, their crime rates are problems that need to be dealt with, but do not compare to the mess in Iraq.
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 05:59 PM
FredPuli
I never knew you were losing soldiers in Detroit. How many policemen are getting murdered there each month or year? Those are people who are in your country, the USA, to keep the peace, so how many casualties are you getting in Detroit? And who is killing them? And why?

That seems a more appropriate line of enquiry , more a case of comparing like with like, than comparing casualties from inter civilian homicides or traffic accidents or any other kind of fatality.

PS I have an answer. Latest date I could find was an April 4th 2002 press release about a memorial. It gives the figure as 217 Detroit police officers 'killed in the line of duty' since 1883. This must be from all causes , not just murders, in the line of duty.
*************************************************************
08-22-05, 11:34 PM
honilov
Well, I think the author of that story had a little too much to drink. Detroit doesn't even compare to Iraq.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 09:43 AM
Rakuchild
The Detroit area's problems are economically based. It was all about auto manufacturing until the jobs started going elsewhere and they were faced with competition from Japan. Then the poverty set in, frustrating and taking hope from much of the population. Fertile conditions to grow terrorists like Michael Moore.

I have to agree with Honi about the author of that article. I've heard much worse stories coming out of Iraq than Detroit. People don't hesitate to go to Detroit to see family/friends.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 02:13 PM
Scotty
The point is that there were more Americans killed in these four cities in one year,than have been killed in Iraq in two years Of fighting the Iraqi military and insurgents.
We are fighting a shooting war over there.
Looks like our troops are safer in Iraq than Detroit, Chicago,etc.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 02:28 PM
methos
"Looks like our troops are safer in Iraq than Detroit, Chicago,etc."

Lets go over the grade-school level math.

140,000 troops at any given time, more or less. About 800 killed per year - so about 0.6%. About 10 million in those cities. Assuming that the FBI statistics quoted are for the cities proper and not the metropolitan area, and neglecting the likelyhood that a protion of the murder victims were not residents, that's 0.02%

0.6% or 0.02% ... Safer where? Roll Eyes

Let's make this simple. 100 people die in a town that only has 100 people. 101 die in a city with a population of 10 million - where would you have a greater chance of dying?
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 02:31 PM
Lighteningrodd

quote:
Originally posted by honilov:
Well, I think the author of that story had a little too much to drink. Detroit doesn't even compare to Iraq.



You're half right any way. Detroit doesn't compare to Iraq. Detroit's a lot worse.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 04:12 PM
Scotty

quote:
Let's make this simple.


Yes! Lets.
Spin just don't get it,sorry.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 06:17 PM
methos
Call it spin all you like, but it's really just simple math.

~0.6% chance of a member of the US military dying from violence in Iraq.

~0.02% chance of a person being murdered in in this hypothetical combined city

0.6% > 0.02%
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 07:47 PM
DorianGreyed
Why not pull the troops out of Iraq, and have them police those cities? There would be enough troops left over to help out on border patrol.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 08:26 PM
Scotty
[quote]The point is that there were more Americans killed in these four cities in one year,than have been killed in Iraq in two years Of fighting the Iraqi military and insurgents.

We are fighting a shooting war over there.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 08:36 PM
AMoore

quote:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Why not pull the troops out of Iraq, and have them police those cities? There would be enough troops left over to help out on border patrol.



The "Posse Comitatus" act. The military are not to be used for police duties.

We could do inter-service transfers to the Coast Gaurd, and have them help with border patrol, of course...

Alan Moore
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 09:22 PM
DorianGreyed
""POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement." - uscg.mil/hq/g-cp

Apparently, it wouldn't take much for the military to be used as police. My comment above about the 82nd Airborne was accurate. Both the 82nd and the Michigan National Guard had riot duty in Detroit in 1967. It can be done.
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 09:26 PM
newnickname

quote:
The point is that there were more Americans killed in these four cities in one year,than have been killed in Iraq in two years Of fighting the Iraqi military and insurgents.

You still seem to miss the major flaws in the comparison. For example - how many Iraqis have been killed in those US cities? Tens of thousands have been killed in Iraq. Shouldn't the Iraqis figure somewhere in the equation?
*************************************************************
08-23-05, 09:48 PM
AMoore

quote:
Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:
The point is that there were more Americans killed in these four cities in one year,than have been killed in Iraq in two years Of fighting the Iraqi military and insurgents.

You still seem to miss the major flaws in the comparison. For example - how many Iraqis have been killed in those US cities? Tens of thousands have been killed in Iraq. Shouldn't the Iraqis figure somewhere in the equation?



Don't worry, they will. If Bush keeps up much longer, Iraqis will be killing people in large numbers in Detroit -- and other US cities. They've already taken their first shot at us in Jordan, and our border is very porous.

Alan Moore
*************************************************************
09-24-06, 11:31 PM
DorianGreyed
I just thought I'd bring this thread back to life, since Iraqis are now dying at a rate of several thousand a month. Is it time to leave yet? Have we helped them enough? Maybe if we left, some of them could use the electricity that we now use, since few of them have it for any significant period of time.
*************************************************************
09-25-06, 12:47 AM
mozart56
If Iraq Is So Bad, Why Aren’t We Pulling Out of Detroit?
The more GWB says "we'll stick around for as long as it takes" , he sends the message to the Iraki gov. "hey we'll take our time , there's no rush"... we have to leave with our troops as soon as possible and let their gov. know "MOVE YOUR BEHIND NOW"!!!
*************************************************************
09-25-06, 03:21 PM
sid1114
Scotty, you have surpassed even yourself in non-sequiter. More people die of cancer every year than in the war. Let's stop searching for a cure.

It's obvious that no amount of facts, no amount of clear statements, will alter your derision of those of us who are "anti-war." But, just so I can die saying I didn't quit trying to make you understand: I'm not anti war, and I'd wager the vast majority of those protesting this war are not anti war. I'm (and they're) anti THIS war. It should be obvious why: it's not only failed to do what we've been told is its reason (reasons -- take your pick), it's clearly making things worse. And in case you feel moved to use the argument du jour that since we were attacked before we invaded, the war isn't the reason for anything bad: let me use this analogy. Someone set your house on fire. You race for the hose, and spray the fire with --- GASOLINE. People try to tell you you're making it worse. You say, that's BS: I didn't start the fire.

There are good wars (WW I, WW II, the Revolution, the Civil War {ours, not theirs}) and there are bad wars. I served in a bad one: the rationale was false (if Vietnam falls, all of Asia will fall), the execution was politicized, and years later, Vietnam is a trading partner. The first Iraq war was (in most ways) a good one: it accomplished something important. This Iraq war is an abomination by any rational measure.

So Scotty: there's a certain smugness to painting those who see this war as ill advised and mismanaged and counter productive as nothing but silly wimps. I (and most protesters, I'd wager) agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a real and highly dangerous threat. And I know without any doubt whatsoever that bush has fought the fight in absolutely the wrong way. I see our country on a precipice of our own making (clarification: we didn't "make" the original threat. We've completely botched the response) and it frightens me to death. I see in you a man of intelligence and purpose. If you refuse at least to hear what I'm saying (let alone ponder its validity), then I fear for our future. Because most people on your side aren't even willing to engage in conversation. If you are refractory, the others are simply too scared to think straight, and prefer -- to our peril -- to believe in george come hell (it's here) or high water (that was last year, in the Gulf Coast.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,