They're still at it: finding every means to justify our presence in Iraq:

[Writer]

My dad sent me this little piece of digust today:

For your consideration:

"If you consider that there have been an average of
160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22
months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm
death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington
D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be
shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the
strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in
Iraq........................

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington."


Here's what I wrote back to my dad:

At least, upon entering Washington, DC, the sign
doesn't say:

"Welcome to Washington, DC: Where crime is in its
last throes."

or

"Welcome to Washington, DC: Crime free city
accomplished!"

If you don't like Washington, DC, at least you can
pack up and leave without too much trouble. I don't
think that's the case with Iraq. I think we're
committed there for a while, even if our soldiers are
picked off one by one. I think it's disgraceful that
some in this country are having to resort to these
ingenuine number games in order to justify this
travesty.

One more thought: citizens of DC aren't roaming the
streets in fatigues and army-issued assault rifles.
That makes this comparison all the more ignominious.

[stopbush]

1. Of course, he's making an erroneous comparison.

If you want to compare the DC "rate" to Iraq, then you better include
EVERYBODY in Iraq who has been killed, not just our servicemen.

Or, he could post the number of policemen/servicemen killed in DC and compare
that rate to that of servicemen killed in Iraq. I guess you'd see 2112 to maybe 3.

I love when the RWers float these stupid comparisons.

BTW - this RW BS has been around awhile. Look at his KIA total: 2112 American
servicemen. Today's count is almost 2500.

[Journeyman]

2. Iraq is approximately the same geographic size as California. . .

has roughly the same population (25 million), and about the same number of foreign troops as California has law enforcement (~150,000). For the past three years, the foreign occupation troops have functioned as the law within Iraq.

Here's the true comparison: Would anyone in this country be complacent if -- on average -- 2.3 policemen were being killed in California every day? If 2600 police officers had been killed in California in the past three years, would anyone feel this was anything less than total anarchy? Would any pundit scoff and compare California to, say, Darfur, and conclude that the situation's acceptable because it could be much worse?

And this doesn't begin to include the civilian toll. Who believes that carbombs and IEDs, dozens of citizens dead in the streets on a regular basis, thousands kidnapped and hundreds assassinated, beheadings, churches bombed and clergy hacked to death with machetes, undrinkable water, people freezing to death in the dark . . . who believes such a total disintegration of civilized society in the most populous State of the Union would warrant a shrug or a smirk or a dismissive wave of the hand? Who would send snarky emails about such Left Coast chaos? And how long would a politician -- any politician in any state or at any level -- how long would they last in office if they made smug and condescending comments about how well the true situation is in California? How obscene would observations about school paintjobs be in such a crisis?

Send these thoughts to your Dad. Let's see what smug answers he may have for this scenario.

[gratuitous]

3. Was that a "for your consideration" email, or . . . ?

I mean, if he sent that to you as a serious argument for the Iraq invasion, I'd be sorely pressed not to respond with "Thank God the Stupid Gene skips a generation; I'll be watching my kids for early intervention."

[Writer]

4. LOL... no he forwarded it.

My dad is actually quite reasonable. A lifelong Republican, he disagrees with our presence in Iraq, but believes we must be there to combat "Islamic radicalism."