We Need to Pull Out of Chicago

I'm sure he was responsible for every single one of those shootings.

~Zoo

Didn't say that.  Just shows that once again, he has never accomplished anything except faking an image.

You mean Gustav is headed for them?

I remember the same thing about New Orleans a couple of years ago.

Well, at least he can give powerful speeches. You know how important that is when one is a President. That should be enough, right?

Well, judging from the phrase "community organizer" it looks like one would organize things in a community.  I'm not sure fighting crime is included in that.

Now if he said, "Crimestopper" or "Police chief" I might well agree with you...but a community organizer has little power when it comes to stopping violent crime.

~Zoo

Chicago is the kind of example Democrats should be using for gun-control. Frankly, there is no way to keep American principles (principals?) and solve the crime problems in Chicago.

That is certainly the gun-control advocate's assumption, but, frankly, there is no empirical evidence to support that assumption, Denmark notwithstanding.

If you were willing to really put money in policing, and arms were illegal, you could do something about guys running around with a gun in their pocket. You can't when guns are legal. It all depends on how you're willing to tackle it. In general, gun control is ridiculous for America given their constitution, but places like Chicago are a Democrat propogandists wet dream.

Interesting you should think that, given that Democrats have run the place since WWII.

Actually, I think they've run it ever since Capone was sent to prison.  Guess there was a 'leadership gap' in his absence.

lol, that's true. But if this election has taught us anything, it's that the whole story is very rarely digested.

The status is chicago is such that only heavy policing will even begin to clamp down on these gangs, and even then it would take a long time.

Democrats in Chicago aren't exactly fighting corruption, either, are they? Unlike the Governor of Alaska

I'll give you that.  Usually too many 'nuances.'

The best line of defense is with the individual.  If You always run to nanny when trying to defend yourself, youll just be attacked where nanny cant protect you.  The police dont have the power to proect everyone all the time, they are best as a deterent and second best as a way to be avenged.

Guess we need a 'surge' in the Chicago Province of Illinois.

Yea, now that he agree's it worked. I guess Obama when from living in Chicago to living in "The Nile" (denial) then back to Chicago again.

He first agreed to possibly drilling, now he agrees the surge worked. Do you think he may follow the trend and admit he does not really have anything on Palin?

His "admission" was like a left handed compliment.  With "admissions" like that, Palin better hope he does not admit anything about her!

The deaths reported in Chicago were, I believe, civilian deaths. During this same period, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq from violence were slightly higher- between 22,586 and 24,159.

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You are not comparing apples to apples.

Regarding Sen. Obama's comments on the surge, you have left out his significent rebuttal to O'Reilly regarding how the surge has resulted in a take back of civilian authority. If you are okay with being in Iraq indefinitely (John McCain's 100 years for example) then you can support the surge. If you are looking for a relatively short-term presence, like leaving in the next 16 months (McCain's new position) then the surge is a band-aid at best.

Can you honestly say that a country where 2,000 civilians are killed each month has been stabilized?

With respect, Larry, the opponents of the surge have set the argument such that 'success' cannot be defined, making it way too easy to move the goalposts & claim 'failure' for at least one of the predetermined reasons.

While you are technically correct on the numbers, stability is a somewhat relative notion over there.  And I'm a little disappointed you buy into the '100 years' silliness.  I hope you'll come back & say you're just using it for effect.

How many civilian deaths occur in the U.S. per month on criminal violence alone?  And Larry, you know the 100 years quote was taken way out of context.  We will always have a military presence in Iraq regardless of who is President.  

The real fact is, that the surge did work, Iraq is becoming stable, and even the media now recognizes that.

I'm afraid you forget two things. Criminals don't buy guns at the local sporting goods shop. They also do not apply for carry permits. Only law abiding citizens (can) do this. Criminals will always get weapons, even if outlawing firearms were enacted nationwide today. The citizen has a responsibility to keep their firearms secure, and should demand that acts of violence with firearms are prosecuted to the extent of the law (capital punishment IMO) instead of the catch and release program currently in place at many locations, Chicago included.There are many poor communities nationwide where this is not an issue. What makes Chicago different? That's where you'll find the problem (and it's not legal gun ownership). 

To do a fairer comparison, you'd need to look either at how many civilians were killed in chicago relative to Iraq (and look at it in terms of proportion of total population), or how many military+police+general law enforcement personel were killed in chicago relative to iraq. Comparing civilians in one situation to military deaths in the other doesn't really tell you that much though.

It is estimated Saddam kill over 300,000 (not including the Iran/Iraq War or 1st Gulf War) of his own people. Divide that by 2000 and you get 150 months worth (or 12 and a half years worth) at the rate you point to. So my question to you is do you think that was a "stable" Iraq under Saddam or is it unstable just because the US is there?

In the American Revolution (1776 - 1782) there were 25,435 causalities. US population 1776 was 2,527,450.

Iraq's population in 2003 was 25,175,000.

So if you look at it by percentages, Iraq obtained their freedom much cheaper in terms of total loss of live that the US did. The main difference here is that less Americans killed other Americans than Iraqi vs Iraqi violence. You can claim every life is precious, and deaths are a sad fact, but what is the price of freedom? I'm sure the Iraqis will be better off when the fighting ends and appreciate the US help.

I dont know.  Can the US be saved?

When has a gun in a pocket ever killed anyone?  The only people threatened by a weapons carried by  concealled carry permit holders are criminals plying their trade.    Rarely does anyone else even know they are there.

It's simple, anti concealled carry is pro criminal.