31 people shot over weekend, at least 6 killed

dread

Member
Mar 5, 2008
603
42
16
Phoenix, AZ
"To get an even better perspective on the gun violence in Chicago, we've taken a look at the number of homicides citywide, most of which are gun related. Put into context, it is true that the number of murders has declined significantly over the last 10 years, from a total of 761 in 1997 to 443 in 2007. "


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6091849



Pretty sad when Americans would rather cry afoul about the war in Iraq instead of cleaning up the mess they leave in their own backyard.
 
I suppose this thread's an interesting way to diminish the damage done by Bush's War...

whatever floats your boat, I guess.


Just trying to point out that the damage done in Iraq isn't near as bad as certain groups (liberal, whack job anti war nuts) have made it out to be. Guess the Dem's war on poverty started by LBJ has turned out to be a failure and we should withdraw from the inner cities of America and leave them to their fate. That is the logic your kind is using.
 
Just trying to point out that the damage done in Iraq isn't near as bad as certain groups (liberal, whack job anti war nuts) have made it out to be. Guess the Dem's war on poverty started by LBJ has turned out to be a failure and we should withdraw from the inner cities of America and leave them to their fate. That is the logic your kind is using.

Negative Press is all it is. If you were to put together all of the crime/murders/shootings, etc... in our nation, I bet we'd have more deaths per year than in Iraq. The Texas border is just as dangerous as Iraq is at the moment.
 
Negative Press is all it is. If you were to put together all of the crime/murders/shootings, etc... in our nation, I bet we'd have more deaths per year than in Iraq. The Texas border is just as dangerous as Iraq is at the moment.

The Texas border is worse because of the drug wars going on there.
 
Just trying to point out that the damage done in Iraq isn't near as bad as certain groups (liberal, whack job anti war nuts) have made it out to be. Guess the Dem's war on poverty started by LBJ has turned out to be a failure and we should withdraw from the inner cities of America and leave them to their fate. That is the logic your kind is using.

Right ... because high crime areas are exactly the same as us invading and occupying a soverign state...

sure thing.
 
The Texas border is worse because of the drug wars going on there.

Yeah I'd put money on that. There's alot they aren't putting on the news about that. There are hundreds and hundreds of missing people on the border; Mexican and American citizens. There are battles going on all of the time....RPG's, grenades, rockets, machine-guns, etc... you just don't here about it. There have been numerous occasions recently, where the Mexican military has infiltrated miles into Texas on operations.
 
Right ... because high crime areas are exactly the same as us invading and occupying a soverign state...

sure thing.

Since you liberal twats only use the violence level in Iraq as a reason for leaving, I figured to show you that Iraq is not the most violent place in the world. Once again, you have shown that attempting to speak rationally and logically to your ilk is a monumental waste of time and I should simply stick with the name calling because that's more fun.
 
Is there a point in here somewhere?

Since there is crime in Chicago that means we were right to invade Iraq.

:cuckoo:

I don't think that's the point that is being made here. I don't believe it has anything to do with whether invading Iraq was right or wrong. What he's saying is that the violence there and "utter failure" is being harped on in the media (hard to imagine they would harp on things that aren't 100% correct--such as the "man" giving birth.) Soldiers come home everyday and will tell you that it's not as bad as what the media shows it to be. I've had several friends over there that will tell you that the media makes it look worse than what it is, and that most of them never fired their weapon...because they didn't need to. If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about the "play up" by the media.
 
I don't think that's the point that is being made here. I don't believe it has anything to do with whether invading Iraq was right or wrong. What he's saying is that the violence there and "utter failure" is being harped on in the media (hard to imagine they would harp on things that aren't 100% correct--such as the "man" giving birth.) Soldiers come home everyday and will tell you that it's not as bad as what the media shows it to be. I've had several friends over there that will tell you that the media makes it look worse than what it is, and that most of them never fired their weapon...because they didn't need to. If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about the "play up" by the media.

You get it, other people get it, the libs here won't get it because it doesn't meet the "We hate Bush, Iraq Bad!" mantra that has been drummed into their weak minds.
 
I don't think that's the point that is being made here. I don't believe it has anything to do with whether invading Iraq was right or wrong. What he's saying is that the violence there and "utter failure" is being harped on in the media (hard to imagine they would harp on things that aren't 100% correct--such as the "man" giving birth.) Soldiers come home everyday and will tell you that it's not as bad as what the media shows it to be. I've had several friends over there that will tell you that the media makes it look worse than what it is, and that most of them never fired their weapon...because they didn't need to. If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about the "play up" by the media.

Maybe. I'd still much rather vacation in Chicago than Iraq and I'd still rather spend the money we are wasting in Iraq in the USA.
 
Maybe. I'd still much rather vacation in Chicago than Iraq and I'd still rather spend the money we are wasting in Iraq in the USA.

Yeah, but that's not the issue being stated here. I agree with you, I would much rather visit Chicago than Iraq....but it's not because I think Iraq is this extremely dangerous place. You're probably just as likely to be kidnapped, killed, raped, mugged in Chicago than alot of places.

The point he is trying to make, is that the Iraq violence is being played up way more than what really goes on, and it's being used as a tool to advocate a withdrawl. If violence could be used to advocate withdrawl, then we would have never been involved in any war.

There are many places in the U.S.A. that are just as dangerous, and more dangerous than Iraq is...you just don't see them on the news everyday. The only difference, is that the insurgents/terrorists use bombs to kill their victims. Then again, an 18 year-old boy was arrested recently for planning to blow up his high-school with some form of nitrate; here in the U.S.A....after numerous deadly mass-killings at schools, malls, jobs...etc...
If you were to take the VT incident, and moved it to Iraq, it would have been harped on alot more. "Deadliest day for U.S. troops in Iraq." "The violence has escalated." "We are losing the war" "There isn' sufficient security." "We need to withdraw?
People look at the violence differently because "Oh it's IRAQ!!!"
 
The press is always harping on the crime rate in the US as well so I really think his point is quite invalid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top