One of the bigshots in this company I'm working for just tried

to tell me that there are more people killed in Washington D.C. yadda yadda yadda ... than in Iraq.

We just had an argument over it. Help me shove is stupidity down his throat.

Fuck, this guy is just this big fat old man who calls himself a 'biker' (rides a Triumph, doesn't even ride a Harley).

This place is just so redneck.

:wtf:

What a moran!

spouting that same 'it's safer there than here' shit.

He just walked away saying its not worth arguing with me over it.

and that gives you....?

:wow: What a MORAN!

engaging in stupid propositions like drug turf wars.

The deaths in Iraq are of good people and are 100% preventable.

Why even redneck ignoramuses want our fine military wasted on this fool's errand is beyond me. How they can look into the mirror every morning when they get ready for work is beyond me.

Why they haven't all died of shame is beyond me.

:eyes:

was no big deal since we lost that many guys in just a few months in WWII.

I was REAL tempted to say, "So I guess by that logic The US losing only 450,000 guys in WWII was no big deal since the Russians lost over..... 25 million in that war."

I did not.

or US soldiers? I think I read over 1,000 civilians were killed in Iraq last month. I doubt that many were killed in DC.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

civillains die everyday from explosions

They're counting US killed in Iraq. To make a valid comparison, ask how many Iraqis are killed in DC every week. He'll have to admit that Iraqis are an insignificant portion of the DC population, that he's counting ALL the dead in DC -- then ask him to count ALL the dead in Iraq, not just the 2-3 US dead each day, but the 20-30 Iraqi dead daily (which doesn't include the big incidents when on particular days there may be 50-100 dead).

If he claims that ~2,500 deaths aren't that big a deal, ask him if he'd support a campaign to execute 2,500 of the nation's top executives. If he protests, then he's explicitly declaring that his life is objectively worth more than someone else's. End of argument.


Also, if you think he's worth wasting time on, ask him if his "more dead in DC" figure includes the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, or if it's just American service personnel.


Tell him he's an asshole, and tell him that I said so.

Maybe that'll shut up this stupid moron.

I first formulated it in response to the "more deaths in insert US city name here" red herring vomited forth by our good friend Rush Limbaugh. Sounds like the corporate bigwig in the OP got his info from Rush, directly or otherwise.

At the time, I wondered if RW demagogues would support a campaign to execute a like number of Conservative radio personalities.

Oh, to dream!

:hide:

...there are (well, there were) 25 million people in Iraq. How many in DC, and what would the rpoportional numbers be? He's clearly of the Brit Hume school of statistical analysis. It can be found in Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars, I believe.

Specific details would be helpful if someone who reads this has Franken's book handy...

Baghdad, since its SOOO much safer than D.C.

He should rent a car (convertible) and do LOTS AND LOTS of site seeing. Recommend a two day trip to Fallujah, the city our soldiers have made safe.

Next perhaps a trip to Ramadi for the interesting sites there.

the number of cops killed in Washington DC compared to the number of service people in Iraq . . . since we're over there doing "police work" now . . . if a proportionate number of cops died in DC as soldiers died in Iraq, DC would be walled off better than a right-winger's wet dream about Mexico . . .

AAAAAANDDD, ask the bigshot if he's counting the number of innocent bystanders killed, as well as number of enemies . . . since he's including ALL "murders" in DC . . .

...are more people killed in traffic accidents EVERY MONTH than were kill on 9-11.

So what?

And I've heard the neocons try to attack it from different angles.

The Iraqi Civilian angle: They'll claim that "only" about 25 per 100,000 Iraqis are dying. For starters, that's >5x the overall murder rate in this country. It's a shitty, horrible figure, akin to what you see in violent places like Colombia.

Now, it IS higher than the very worst murder rates in a few especially violent cities, although those city stats are seriously distorted because metro areas always swell significantly in real population versus the number who actually reside there.

But was the purpose of our occupation of Iraq to make the entire country as dangerous as America's most dangerous places?

The American Casualty angle: They'll claim that 2,500 soldiers is no big deal. Ask your fat redneck asswipe how many police officers we'd tolerate being killed in the line of duty. There are around 25,000 or so officers in NYC. That's about 1/6 as many troops as are stationed in Iraq. If there'd been one sixth as many NYC police officers killed in the past three years--400 or so, or 130 per year, killed in the line of duty--it'd be considered an unprecedented bloodbath.

America would NEVER tolerate this in ANY violent city.

Finally, ask your redneck co-worker why he hates the troops so much that he's trying to paper over the real dangers they face.

Funny thing is the manager of the branch is on vacation and this guy was left in charge. He's fucked up stuff so badly it'll take a week to fix some of it.

over 100,000 people were killed in DC?

I told him you can't compare the murder rates of one city against an entire country. He just kept saying 'why not?'

argument...apples and oranges.

Thats how I would frame a reply to a redneck to put him him in his place.



edit to include: Working with ignorant rednecks eh? You have my sincere sympathies. Now go kick their butts.