With all the news coverage floating about the "deteriorating" and "chaos" in Iraq, some thought a comparison of violent US cities might be in order.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/...2706.shtml?s=ic

EXERPT:

Talk about cod statistics, if you want to compare like with like then you need to compare Baghdad with Washington DC or Iraq with the USA.

Just a very quick estimate using the population of Baghdad (2003) as 5.7m (Reference.com) and the current civilian death rate in Baghdad of approximately 40 per day (Iraq Body Count)
I make the annualised Baghdad civilian death rate as 256.14 per 100,000, somewhat higher than the "45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C", quoted in your article.

If you wish to compare the figure given in the article for Iraq as a whole, 27.51 per 100,000, then you should do so with a figure for the USA as a whole,
the figure quoted on Nationmaster for murders in the USA is 4.28 per 100,000 people.

TONK, you absurdly insult your own intelligence with this either ignorant use of numbers or deliberately fabricated concoction of 256.14 murders per 100,000 for Baghdad alone.

Talking about being a selective user of intelligence to conduct your own ideological war in a fallaciousness, as equal to any of those you so often accuse of doing the same.

Your lying in ignorance or purposefully in this false use of numbers destroy not only your creditably but your causes as much as Dan Rather, Boorish Moore and is equally a foot, if factual as you say, as that of GW and his government use of false intelligence.

First, the article and the thread was ONLY about Baghdad, A CITY, as compared to Washington DC. A CITY.

Second, the any city in the US is not in a war zone.

Third, the number of deaths used by Body count, which are HIGHLY DISPUTED, as inflated, are Iraq wide NOT BAGHDAD EXCLUSIVE AS YOU SO FALSELY MANIPULATE with this absurd 245.1 murders per 100,000.




Forth, even using the numbers you FALSIFIED as listed in body count’s well know inflated figures, the Average figure of 28.73 compares favorably to those of the article as provided by the Pentagon statistics and cross-checked with independent research as Rep. King said.

28.73 does compares to his 27.51 per 100,000 of IRAQ WIDE DEATHS, DOES IT NOT?

In terms of average violent deaths per day this represents:
· 20 per day in Year 1 (May 1 2003 to Mar 19 2004 324 days)=6,480
· 31 per day in Year 2 (Mar 20 2004 to Mar 19 2005 365 days)=11,315
· 36 per day in Year 3. (Mar 20 2005 to Mar 19 2006 346 days)=12,456
· 29 Avg per day; even using days and total killed= 28.73 ( 30,251/1053



Five, it is relevant beyond simple minded ignoring of the fact that in the US there is not war and in Iraq there is. So a look per 100,000 of Iraq vs the US and Baghdad vs Washington DC and other High murder rate cites per 100,000 would be relevant as well

US Population -298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) per 100,000=2,984

Iraq Population - 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.) = per 100,000=26.7

Size ratio per 100,000 US 11,200,000 for each 100,000 Iraqis.

Washington DC - 553,523 –Per 100,000= 5.54

Baghdad – 5, 753 612- per 100,000=57.53

Ratio per 100,000 DC has 100,000 per ever 1,0384,447 in Baghdad

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo.../iz.html#People
http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&m...=aohdq&geo=-105

DC’s historical Murder Rate per 100,000

Washington DC has had Murder rates per 100,000 since 1980 as high as 80.1 80.1 per 100,000 in 1991 and in 2000 41.8

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

DC 2004 murder rate per 100,000- 35.7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:

· Detroit: 41.8 per 100,000

· Baltimore: 37.7 per 100,000

· Atlanta: 34.9 per 100,000

· St. Louis: 31.4 per 100,000

· New Orleans before Katrina--53.1 deaths per 100,000

http://www.aina.org/news/20060601120228.htm

Other nations with higher per 1000 Murder rates per

Columbia has 61.7 per 100,000 ( Insurgency)

South Africa has 49.6 per 100,000 ( No Insurgency)

Jamaica--has 32.4 per 100,000 ( No Insurgency).

Venezuela has 31.61 violent deaths per 100,000 ( No Insurgency)

nation master,

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap







THAT IS ALL!!

My sincere apologies, I have indeed been found guilty of cod statistics.

The figure of 40 deaths per day is for Iraq as a whole not just Baghdad, in mitigation I would point out it was late and I was following a link for civilian casualties in Baghdad and mistook the figure, but again my apologies.
(So far I've been unable to find a figure for Baghdad alone).

That said, although my calculation is in error, the original article is comparing Iraq with Washington DC NOT city with city. Therefore the correct comparison is:

Iraq 27.51 per 100,000
USA 4.28 per 100,000

Neither comparison is worthwhile, because of radically different population sizes. Baghdad is much larger than DC. The USA is much larger than Iraq.

The only truly accurate comparison is post-Saddam Iraq with pre-Saddam Iraq, which comes up with Iraqis five times less likely to be killed now that Saddam is gone.

The figures are per 100,000 head of population so they are statistically comparable.
Though the very different circumstances do make the comparison near worthless I'd agree.

In French fashion, though in retreat, still defending. Yet once again improperly I am afraid.

I would remind the good sir that the cites and countires I mentioned each were given at per 100,000 and most were not in the midst of a war.

They, as well, compared to the country of Iraq in deaths per 100,000 and WERE, IN EACH CASE LISTED, FAR HIGHER per 100,000 than even in this "war zone of leftist obessions on Iraq and Afghanistan combined."

So there are in fact many more places in this world much more deadly that your leftist minds ignore because it is convenient to your agenda to do so not because it factual and right to do so.

THAT IS ALL!!

No Trader, I was pointing out that the comparison made in the article was misleading. It compared a figure for Iraq with a figure for Washington DC. The comparison should be made either country to country or city to city. The fact that country death rates per capita are higher elsewhere is not pertinent to my point that the article's comparison is inappropriate.

The attached map shows the unequal distribution across Iraq, with Baghdad accounting for more than 50% of civilian deaths.


Source: BBC

Source: BBC

Excuse me, I am not sure where you got your math training obviously from the best school in France as you showed us earlier.

This logic is absurd. It does not matter a hill of beans about where the numbers comes from or the size of the populations ones compares IF THE NUMBERS ARE POSTURED IN A COMMON DENOMINATOR, they become comparable and size or locale become irrelevant. Any first year statistic student will tell you that.

If I count the number of bad coffee beans out of a population 10 million from Brazil by counting them per 100,000 I get a number of BAD beans per 100K from Brazil

If count the number of Bad coffee beans out of 10 million from Panama by counting them per 100,000 I get the a number of bad beans per 100k from Panama

It would not matter if both Panama and Brazil had differing totals of beans as my measure is for BAD BEANS and is equated in comparitive common denominators as per 100,000. Which gives exactly the same number of Bad per 100k no matter the population even if one where only 10 % of the beans the other has. It becomes eqivilant.

If one has less or more per 100k it gives one inference comparable data that is why all the organizations you referenced like nation master, the UN, the FBI ect., give statistic in common denominators to be able to compare on equal footing two disperse and varant numbers either far apart or close together.

Once done, then you can see by the common denominator of measure as to which location gives the less and or most bad beans per 100K in an equality of comparison.

It does not explain why there may be a different but it does show that when in common measures of per 100k they may be a different and this information can be used to make comparative inference and judgments.

I have seen your map and as I have said it is a number that has been questioned by many bodies as being inflated as if is by far larger by 2 times than any other source thus far that is following this.

You are just poorly trying to proof your point with French fuzzy math I think.

Yet, in fact, you can not change that per 100,000, many US cities are as violent as all of Iraq has been during the entire war and all efforts to change that does not change this math of the equality of dispersion and equivalency.

Poorly done tonk, poor done, indeed. Think about why do they give numbers in compasions per 100 per 1000 or per 100,000 so as to make them equivalent and comparably dispersed that is why.


THAT IS ALL!!

We're not talking about coffee beans we're talking about murders.

Murders are not evenly distributed throughout a country, most will occur within urban areas and some cities will be more violent than others, whilst in rural areas rates are far lower. Hence the murder rate in say Detroit is 41.8 per 100,000 whilst the overall figure for the USA is 4.28 murders per 100,000 head of population.

If you were wanting to understand how Detroit compared with other countries you would look to compare the figure with a city of similar size rather than with a national figure.

You can of course still make the comparison, but the exercise is meaningless.

Once again Tonk, I realize I gave you far to much credit as to having a basic knowledge and sense of honesty and fairness as opposes to this obligatorily effort seeking to press your agenda no matter the facts or how proven wrong you are.

How French surrender and retreat into impotency and then deflect the truth by revise the facts of history to show you true glory. Indeed perfect.

This poor attempt at deflection as to murder and beans being unrelated is a most supercilious effort seeking not to accept the pure statistical mathematics principles of why Per capita is used as an equalizing measure among varying populations of data for purpose of fairly and equally comparing them on a equal to equal per capita basis.

A tool you have used many times here THAT IS when it suites your intend agenda.

Explain why the world uses things like this to compare one country, city, race, religion and or even bad bean or what ever to another?

If you are capable of being fair, honest and using facts, instead of this self intend agenda in a willingness to create fact and truth in fashion of TQ and Dan Rather demeanor.

· Births (2003): 4,091,063 (14.1 per 1,000 pop.)
· Deaths (2003): 2,423,000 (8.3 per 1,000 pop.)
· Marriages (2004): 2,181,000 (7.4 per 1,000 pop.)
· Divorces (2004): 3.7 per 1,000 pop.1
· Infant mortality rate (2002): 7.0 per 1,000 live births

Crude Birth and Death Rates for Selected Countries
(per 1,000 population)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html

Crude Marriage Rates for Selected Countries
(per 1,000 population)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004385.html

Per Capita
A simple explanation of per capita rates and comparisons, for journalists and other writers who might not know math.

Percent change in value tells you only part of the story when you are comparing values for several communities or groups. Another important statistic is each group's per capita value. This figure helps you compare values among groups of different size.

Let's look at Springfield and Capital City again. This year, 800,000 people live in Springfield while 600,000 live in Capital City. Five years ago, however, just 450,000 people lived in Springfield while 550,000 lived in Capital City.

Why is this important? The fact that Springfield grew so much more than Capital City over the past five years could help explain why the number of murders in Springfield increased by so much over the same period. After all, if there are more people in a city, one might expect there to be more murders.
To find out if one city really is more dangerous than another, you need to determine a per capita murder rate. That is, the number of murders for each person in town.

To find that rate, simply divide the number of murders by the total population of the city. To keep from using a tiny little decimal, statisticians usually multiply the result by 100,000 and give the result as the number of murders per 100,000 people.

In Springfield's case, 50 murders divided by 800,000 people equals a murder rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people. Capital City's 50 murders divided by 600,000 people equals a murder rate of 8.33 per 100,000 people.

Five years ago, Springfield's 29 murders divided by 450,000 people equaled a murder rate of 6.44 per 100,000 people. And Capital City's 42 murders divided by 550,000 equaled a murder rate of 7.64 per 100,000 people.

In Percent, we found that the number of murders in Springfield increased 72 percent over five years, while the number of murders in Capital City grew by just 19 percent. But when we now compare per capita murders, Springfield's murder rate decreased by almost 3 percent, while Capital City's per capita murder rate increased by more than 9 percent.

There's the real story....Tonk not these fabrication of miscalculation example in a clear lack of math knowledge, emdedded in misnomers of purposeful deflections just to to prove, unintelligently, your real purpose. Which is to advance your agenda in a d a m n the facts, d a m n the mathematic principles clearly to support one fact you do not like the outcome of the facts.

Next lesson: Standard Deviation

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/percap.shtml

POINT AND MATCH!!!

Lies, ###### Lies and Statistics.

What is the point in debating the topic.

Andrew

And sorry if I upset any one with the swear word.

Andrew

Trader YES the figures are equatable, both being calculated on the same per capita basis, but that was not and never been the issue.

The issue is the validity of comparing a city statistic with a national statistic. Looking at the US national murder statistic of 4.28 per 100,000 will not help you to discover if New York is more dangerous than New Orleans. A comparison between the UK national statistic will not tell you if New York is safer than London.

Do you honestly not see that?

Of course I see that.

I see you are, as is in fashion, asking the wrong questions on the wrong subjects and trying compare them as if you can nopt make them equal in comparison which is why they use per capita in the first place.

I see that by knowing the national equitable scale for the US this will allow me to fairly and equally compare how that same scale stands, per 100,000, againts New York or New Orleans or London or the Uk.

In doing that I can fairly, without ambugity, on the same scale, infer a conclusion from these commonly formed numbers out of an uneven and varied population making then mathamatically equal in scale. In this case I came infer by the created common denominator of per capita per 100,000 which is like to have more murders per 100,000 as it is the only way one can compareone place that is 10% of anothers fairly.

I can see how that number compares to the US on per capita basis. I can see, if I know the figures for the UK how they matches fairly and in equally beside say London or the US and or France or Berlin.

Likewise as we started out in original post I can see that per 100,000 human beings more are killed in Washington DC than are killed in all of country of Iraq per 100,000 like I can see per 100,000 less are killed in the UK than Washington DC or the US..

Ask any math or statistic major. That is why I gave the mathmaticians link and his examples el French fry.


TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!


THAT IS ALL!!

Sorry you're the one taking a detour into coffee beans rather than addressing the point, the point is that Rep. Steve King's comparison of a Washington DC figure with the figure for Iraq as a whole was calculated to mislead - indeed it mislead you!

French mathamatic is obvious as obstenate as the french. It apparently proves conclusively that it was the French who first to invent the circle jerk.



As they have no idea about the relativity of data population comparsion using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).




TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!


THAT IS ALL!!

That you should be reduced to childish insults says it all.

That is all!

And the winner is ustrader

TKO

That presupposes the boxers were in the same ring!

Whilst I've been discussing the validity (worth) of the comparison made in the original article,
Trader has been on a tangential discussion considering the validity (accuracy) of the calculations.

The methodology isn't in question, the misleading and worthless comparison is!

Even the WSJ has trouble with King's figures.............


How Does Iraq Rate?

In her New York Sun column, Alicia Colon cites some interesting figures about Iraq, offered by Rep. Steve King of Iowa:

According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

Rush Limbaugh also picked this up, though the item on his Web site has gone behind the subscription wall. We thought it sounded too good to be true, and we were right. We called Rep. King's office and asked for the sources of the figures. Here they are:

* The Iraq rate is a ratio of civilian death figures, taken from this site, to population, taken from this site. According to King aide Summer Johnson, the number is 27.51; two digits were transposed in Colon's column. (We used the figure of 8,745 civilian deaths since April 28, 2005, given on this page, annualized it to 8,312, and came up with 31.03 per 100,000 per year--a higher rate but within the same general range.)

* The figures for other countries are homicide rates, taken from this page, which is based on U.N. reports that can be found here.

* The figures for U.S. cities also are homicide rates, taken from this chart.

The figure for Iraq, then, is not the "violent death rate"; it is only the rate of violent death from war. (The equivalent figure for the other countries and cities presumably would be zero.) To arrive at a "violent death rate" for Iraq, we would to add in the civil homicide rate.

The most recent such figures we could find from Iraq are on page 777 of this PDF document, which says that between 1990 and 1994, the annual homicide rate was between 5.66 and 7.28 per 100,000. These figures don't tell us much, though, since (a) in those days Iraq had a criminal regime, and criminal regimes are not in the habit of accounting for their own crimes, and (b ) the greater freedom in Iraq since 2003 might well have affected the rate of civil homicide.

Furthermore, even if war deaths in Iraq vs. civil homicides elsewhere were a valid comparison, the King figures are a lowball estimate of the former. That's because the numerator--the number of Iraqi "civilian" deaths--excludes soldiers and policemen. But civil homicide rates do include policemen and soldiers murdered in the line of duty--as several hundred of them were on 9/11.

In addition, the comparison with U.S. cities poses a problem of scale. Just as some municipalities here have high concentrations of crime, Baghdad and some other Iraqi cities have high concentrations of military, guerrilla and terrorist activity. A comparison of Baghdad with Los Angeles or a similarly sprawling U.S. city would be more enlightening than a comparison of Iraq as a whole with cities of well under a million people.

We of course sympathize with the broader point King and Colon are making. But it's important to be careful with numbers. Without meaning to, they have painted a misleadingly Pollyannaish picture of Iraq, and that's the wrong way to counter the liberal media's misleadingly Cassandrian one.

Wall Street Journal

Tonk, your statistics are equally untenable. The only tenable statistic is comparing Iraqi deaths since the war to Iraqi deaths before the war.

Which comes out with Iraq five times better off.

Of course when have you ever heard of a Frenchmen that would fight?

They are way to busy posing in the mirror like your moniker and or telling others how messed up they are and how superior the French are in being right about all things.

Tonk, the joie de vivre of your anger that someone here would have the audacity much less the intelligence to prove you wrong, as many others than I have often done, is the reason for my comical “pwng” of you in satire.

Yet again, I note your winless record only drives you more to seek another misrepresentation in your post as if what was presented were a well researched, sourced news article by a main stream media person seeking unbiased honest comparison.

When in fact your post was nothing but a sought after like-minded war malinger Op –ed.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:00 p.m. EDT



Whose lead OPINION editorial was;

QUOTE

Even in his supposition in the selective use of quotes by Kerry, who used, as well, selective memory for CNN, they both are dishonest in this agenda of opinion they spew.


One, in fact, as the record shows on Vietnam, every allegation of war crimes and criminal qualified murder was investigated.




Then he lamates on to your article, posted by you, as if news but written as nothing but an opinion like your postings here on this thread.

The writer also uses US homicide data to 2002 from the below site, even then, his data shows Washington, DC had in 2002 7,767 homicides which was 45.9 per 100,000 which is comparable to those I gave and used by Rep King and importantly he says so.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

While I provided current and historical data like below;

DC’s historical Murder Rate per 100,000

Washington DC has had Murder rates per 100,000 since 1980 as high as 80.1 80.1 per 100,000 in 1991 and in 2000 41.8

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

DC 2004 murder rate per 100,000- 35.7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

The writer further uses to proof his agenda driven opinion, information from Iraq from 1990 to 1991



What he does not tell you is what is blatantly obvious is that the First Iraq War was conducted during that period and none of the death figures from that war are accounted for in these figures. The writer confirms that even the statistics given are questionable as they do not account the body count of Saddam mass graves.

He uses nation master's per capita murder rates ( which uses, in comparison per 1000 by country and does not even attempt to estimate IRAQ at ALL.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita

Then the writer states (We used the figure of 8,745 civilian deaths since April 28, 2005, given on this page, annualized it to 8,312, and came up with 31.03 per 100,000 per year—a higher rate but within the same general range.)

[B]Thusly confirming the figures used were unquestionably agreeing with the figures used by Rep King as tolerantly accurate.
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

He goes in to say in opinion and conjecture as if relevant the incomprehensiable logic prsented below. Yet fails to even attempt to prove, but in opinion only, the relevance of this logic mathamaticly just like TONK;



What this opinioned war malinger writer that Tonk sought out in like-mindedness does not do, is explain when has a homicide been a NON-Violent death as compared to that of violent death, distinguished falsely but by from war.

For NOT ONE site that keeps data on deaths in Iraq states any where that they are distinguishing civilian deaths by war from those that are from common natural causes, accidents, criminalhomicide or war activity. [U]except in pre-war numbers that Opinion maker freely admits are questionable given Saddam uncounted for mass grave tyranny

Truth is, the Iraq body count pages biggest criticism is that takes personal unconfirmed reports and morgue counts that can not be verified and clumps them into unverifable totals.

Most agree that the only site that offers a real, nearly accurate account, which only began counting Iraq’s deaaths since Jan 2005 is http://icasualties.org/oif/

A site which has verified there has been 9,652 civilians killed since jan 2005 but still does not distinguish as to them being cause by the Allies, the insurgents or via natural causes, accidents or common criminal activity.

The most important enlightenment of this whole circle jerk is the broader point that the war malingers like Tonk and friends use the violence in Iraq as a measure of American immorality and unjustness.

While ignoring in abject silent support and condoning the killing of those insurgents who have killed an estimated 94 to 97 % of all civilian in Iraq since Jan 2005.

Which was the true point here, that Iraq is not near as violent as the war malingers would suppose nor as non violent as the other side would surmise.

The deaths occurring there are not being done by Americans or allies but by Iraqi and other Muslims in the vast majority. A morality of blame silently unnoticed or spewed about as being so immoral and wrong by those like tonk who still do accept this is a blair said NOW A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS where there are no longer any non-combatant as, Spain Austraila, the UK Indonesia, Thailand and even Toronto learned this very day.

The OPINIONED writer goes on to say;



Like Tonk and his war malingers, the writer of this article fails to provide contextual relevance and an alternative to the core issues in this debate raging between a misleading Pollyannaish picture of Iraq and misleadingly Cassandrian pictures of Iraq.

One, he gives no insight into the debate what so ever as he merely uses the same numbers Rep King did and confirmed them near accurate. He does not EXPLAIN the fact that NO organization keeping death totals in Iraq does so in a way you can, in distinctions, separate the deaths by natural, accident, Criminal homicide, Insurgency and or allied military sources.

Two, the writer, like TONK, leaves out the purpose OF WHY ALL major academic bodies who seek inferences in mathematical comparison between two bodies of data use per capita as THE equalizer irregardless of disproportionately.

Even the opinion author himself uses per capita to proves is war malingers point of view.

DC is a mess! A real quagmire...

TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!

Again Tonk, Point and match!!!

THAT IS ALL!!

Trader the article is misleading, it mislead you, thus you proved my point admirably.

Enough.

Well the article may be misleading, but the numbers are not lies.

Again I maintain that the only truly tenable statistic is post-Saddam Iraq vs. Iraq under Saddam.

there is no doubt that Iraq is probably better as a whole under American occupation...but it could have been carried out A LOT better.

Thanks Tonky for that excellent example of Europeon condecension. You fools really are a hoot.

Enough, not even!

If only this quote you used was contextual relevant to what you imply and not just in a desparate agenda point, like your mistaken math and subsequenct posts instead. Even then it would but not contextually prove your point against the body of evidence presented.

I see, the despiration for but one victory is becoming overwheming, not only in using French fuzzy math but their arcane ability to take things out of contextual reality and in fact and self declare a false victory in even more fussy logic of self worth.

Nice try though, Yet, another misfire and dud round fired in french fury.

Next!

TONK, don't say I can not accept new facts that may oppose my opinion when th new information changes the facts as they were known before.

Violent Baghdad deaths top 6,000

The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show.

Based on the population figures and the fact 6,000 people some undetermined but minority number whose minority extent is unknown as being bur 1% or 25% died of natural or accidental non-violent causes leaving the issue ambiguous and undetermined as to the exact number dying by homicidal means.

Even with this doubt and taking the figures for their unverifiable veracity, the per capita per 100,000 residence in Baghdad is 55.488 which when divided into the 6,000 alleged death by ALL MEANS would equal 100.8607 per 100,000, giving TONK the argument in fairness and using these new facts.

Yet, another well respected source http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

Puts the Iraqi Deaths at 4,730 or with 55.488 per 100,000 population the deaths per 100,000 would be 85.24 per 100,000 even with lower more reliable source, I concede the argument to TONK that Baghdad is more violent than DC.

Yet, not yielding the fact that baghdad is in a war zone and the other, is not, except with the halls of Congress, and it, DC is in a out of control zone in magnitudes beyond comprehension considering there is no war.

That is based on the below Baghdad — Population: 5,948,800
According to http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/geo/popcity.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5053134.stm

Bellatoris Mores
Munus semper primus perficiam
Numquam cladem accipiam
Numquam signa deseram

That is all!

TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!

I applaud your magnanimity

Magnanimity is the nectar of truth to the sincere.

Actually as noble as your post was, I did spot some 'fuzzy' American maths

The Baghdad morgue figures are for the year to May only, just 5 months.

MORTUARY'S MONTHLY TOLL

January: 1068
February: 1110
March: 1294
April: 1155
May: 1398

Total: 6025

Therefore the correct calculation of an annualised per capita figure would be

((6025÷5)×12)÷55.48

Which gives an annualised death rate of 260.63 per 100,000 Baghdad residence not 100.86.