Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California
I got this as an e-mail and I figured that with all the complaints of how Bush is killing our soldiers in Iraq, this might show just how horrible he is...



Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost a total of 3,140 soldiers.  As tragic as the loss of any soldier is, consider this: below is a list of deaths of soldiers while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:

FIGURES ARE CONFIRMED ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITE
1980      2,392
1981      2,380
1982      2,319
1983      2,465
1984      1,999
1985      2,252
1986      1,984
1987      1,983
1988      1,819
1989      1,636
1990      1,507
1991      1,787
1992      1,293
1993      1,213
1994      1,075
1995      1,040
1996        974
1997        817
1998        827
1999        796
2000        758
2001        891
2002        999
2003      1,410      534*
2004      1,887      900*
2005       919*
2006      920*
* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

Does this really mean that the losses from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during King Clinton's presidency?  Were we at war?

Now, are you confused when you look at these figures?  I was.  Especially when I saw that in 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel Peace Prize" himself (Carter), there were 2,392 military fatalities of U.S. soldiers.

What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose. They choose NOT to present the facts.

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.  The latest census shows the following:

European descent (white) 69.12%
Hispanic                             12.5%
African American               12.3%
Asian                                   3.7%
Native American                 1.0%
Other                                  2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic                              10.74%
African American                  9.67%
Asian                                     1.81%
Native American                   1.09%
Other                                     2.33%

Hmm.......
Please, don't just take my word, see for yourself:


Gateway Pundit: US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/ … under.html


Military Casualty Information

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C … castop.htm
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6788
Good post. Good information, I'll read up on it some more when I wake up in the morning.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6645|London, England
I fail to understand how that many soldiers could die in peacetime, especially in the worlds most "advanced" armed forces. Besides, as you can see. The numbers were going down until the wars, you could say that's because of better technology. The article also, when it eventually gets to the wars, just states war casualties and nothing else. So according to the trend of that chart, add another 800 to those deaths for "non war" casualties for 2003 onwards.

Extremely manipulative thing you just posted there. Unbelievable. Especially playing around with death statistics like that, i guess that's one thing you learned from Joe Stalin.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-06-18 01:31:33)

<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6489|Melbourne - Home of Football
You should've read a bit further down the page which you've supplied as your source:

Aplomb wrote:

This post is highly misleading. You are comparing all deaths in the Clinton years (including accident, sickness, homicide, etc.) to just combat fatalities in Iraq.

If you look at the DoD report you linked to, you will see that the actual comparable numbers show a marked increase since the war began.

For example, the true comparable numbers show that during Clinton's years, the fatalities from all causes were a high of 1293 in 1992 to a low of 768 in 2000. (Generally, fatalities declined almost every year during the Clinton years due to fewer fatal accidents and illnesses.)

Compared to the 768 deaths due to all causes in Clinton's last year, the chart shows 1410 in 2003 and 1887 in 2004, both of which are higher than the 938 average number you have calculated for the Clinton years. Presumably 2005 and 2006 are and will also be higher. If you want to be honest and have your chart compare apples to apples, those are the numbers you have to look at.

Or, just compare combat deaths. Interestingly, there was but a single combat death during the Clinton years, or .125 deaths per year. That is the true and accurate figure that should be used to contrast with the average figure you calculated for the Iraq war: .125 vs. 789.

Maybe this comment will exlain the lack of outrage during the Clinton years.
When you look at the actual Department of Defense figures here:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C … _Rates.pdf
You see that in actual fact, deaths were highest in the year 2005, since 1987.

I can tell you that posting such misleading information is a poor reflection on yourself and does not contribute to informed debate.
namsdrawkcaB
Biggest n00blet around!
+35|6323
Hmm, very interesting, I must admit I never knew..
+1 to you.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6652|IRELAND

"This post is highly misleading. You are comparing all deaths in the Clinton years (including accident, sickness, homicide, etc.) to just combat fatalities in Iraq."
/close
CannonFodder11b
Purple Heart Recipient
+73|6713|Fort Lewis WA

Mekstizzle wrote:

I fail to understand how that many soldiers could die in peacetime, especially in the worlds most "advanced" armed forces. Besides, as you can see. The numbers were going down until the wars, you could say that's because of better technology. The article also, when it eventually gets to the wars, just states war casualties and nothing else. So according to the trend of that chart, add another 800 to those deaths for "non war" casualties for 2003 onwards.

Extremely manipulative thing you just posted there. Unbelievable. Especially playing around with death statistics like that, i guess that's one thing you learned from Joe Stalin.
Because just like normal people.... soldiers die. Those numbers most likely involve all deaths, car accidents, military training accidents, death while skiing, drownings, and other shit. Drowning Accidents happen frequently in the summer. Joe likes to get drunk and go swimming.
I'm guilty of getting plastered on red bull and vodka's and making the attempt to snow board. Its fun as hell, but the next day hurts. I climbed to the summit of Mr Rainer drunk as fuck. Joe drinks and like everyone else he likes to do stupid shit.
Training accidents happen. During Drivers training after we got back from our first trip to Iraq, I lost a really good friend because his stryker drove near a treee that was half dead, the top protion of the tree pinned him against the periscope ring, and the top of the stryker. Shit happens.
Its called the murphy factor.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

rdx-fx wrote:

From an official source http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C … _Rates.pdf
Total deaths and total number of soldiers in service.
PDF breaks down by (Accident, Hostile, Homicide, Illness, Pending, Self Inflicted,Terrorist ,Undetermined)

Just for those that can't be bothered to click, I've copied the year and total number of deaths - including hostile and non-hostile causes. And, for curiosity's sake, Which president was in office for the majority of the year (A US President takes office on Jan 20th, every 4 years.  so, Jan 20th 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn into office)

Total
Deaths
1980    2,392  J Carter
1981    2,380  R Reagan
1982    2,319  R Reagan
1983    2,465  R Reagan
1984    1,999  R Reagan
1985    2,252  R Reagan
1986    1,984  R Reagan
1987    1,983  R Reagan
1988    1,819  R Reagan
1989    1,636  GH Bush
1990    1,507  GH Bush 
1991    1,787  GH Bush
1992    1,293  GH Bush
1993    1,213  BJ Clinton
1994    1,075  BJ Clinton
1995    1,040  BJ Clinton
1996       974  BJ Clinton
1997       817  BJ Clinton
1998       827  BJ Clinton
1999       796  BJ Clinton
2000       758  BJ Clinton
2001       891 GW Bush
2002       999 GW Bush
2003    1,228 GW Bush
2004    1,874 GW Bush
2005    1,942 GW Bush
2006    1,858 GW Bush

If I get a chance later, I may post "your percent chance of getting killed in the US Armed Forces, by year"  by just taking (# of Troops / # of Deaths).  Might be an interesting breakdown.

For real fun, someone could take that number and compare it with total civilian deaths per year.

EDIT: Some other veterans, please take a look at the 1992-2000 "hostile deaths" column in the above PDF - and tell me what you think of it....
lol compared to civilian deaths, military ones would be dwarfed... but one main reason for that would be because there arent many 90 yr olds dieing of old age in the military.. lol
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6788
I should seriously sleep before I post.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

Ridir wrote:

I should seriously sleep before I post.
good night... lol
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6651
Before you go off on a post you may want to look deeper into the facts which you yourself posted.  For example, look at the deaths by "accident"  vs. deaths by hostility.  Your boy George wins hands down on deaths by hostility.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

GATOR591957 wrote:

Before you go off on a post you may want to look deeper into the facts which you yourself posted.  For example, look at the deaths by "accident"  vs. deaths by hostility.  Your boy George wins hands down on deaths by hostility.
yes Bush wins hands down on deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom only... not in all hostilities... you may want to look deeper into the facts posted in front of you before you go off on a reply..
elstonieo
Oil 4 Euros not $$$
+20|6362|EsSeX
Isn't the thread title misleading all the data is showing is Iraq Fatalities not casualties

have you got a source for the actual Iraq casualties ?
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

elstonieo wrote:

Isn't the thread title misleading all the data is showing is Iraq Fatalities not casualties

have you got a source for the actual Iraq casualties ?
sorry, i didnt think i had to be THAT politically correct, and if u read to the bottom of the post, ull see there are 2 links, those are the sources....
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|6654|Washington, DC

What the fuck were we doing in the 80s?
derstralle
Iron Egg Skill, bitches!
+29|6239

Smitty5613 wrote:

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.  The latest census shows the following:

European descent (white) 69.12%
Hispanic                             12.5%
African American               12.3%
Asian                                   3.7%
Native American                 1.0%
Other                                  2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic                              10.74%
African American                  9.67%
Asian                                     1.81%
Native American                   1.09%
Other                                     2.33%
You do realize that the fraction of 'minority-casualties' is lower than the fraction of minorities in the population?
Klinka-Klinko
NIKE Swoosh
+101|6244|cs_connecticut‬‭
Russians?
elstonieo
Oil 4 Euros not $$$
+20|6362|EsSeX

Smitty5613 wrote:

elstonieo wrote:

Isn't the thread title misleading all the data is showing is Iraq Fatalities not casualties

have you got a source for the actual Iraq casualties ?
sorry, i didnt think i had to be THAT politically correct, and if u read to the bottom of the post, ull see there are 2 links, those are the sources....
isn't there a difference between factually correct and politically correct

yeah sorry didnt notice that link was reading the pdf doh..
iamangry
Member
+59|6669|The United States of America
Amazing find, +1 to you!

I think this would be more interesting and informative if you included numbers for wounded as well in your OP.  Just cause someone doesn't die in Iraq doesn't mean they aren't totally fucked up.  I do like how its such a downward trend though.  And from the face of it the statistics are pretty amazing.  Heres another fact (dont know how accurate it is, don't take my word from it, heard it from someone else): More US service men would have died during the first gulf war if they had been driving on american roads during the time they were fighting instead of fighting.  Amazing.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

iamangry wrote:

Amazing find, +1 to you!

I think this would be more interesting and informative if you included numbers for wounded as well in your OP.  Just cause someone doesn't die in Iraq doesn't mean they aren't totally fucked up.  I do like how its such a downward trend though.  And from the face of it the statistics are pretty amazing.  Heres another fact (dont know how accurate it is, don't take my word from it, heard it from someone else): More US service men would have died during the first gulf war if they had been driving on american roads during the time they were fighting instead of fighting.  Amazing.
thx... but im not bored enough to go find the #s of wounded too lol..... yet
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6605|the dank(super) side of Oregon
that's ~3577 deaths and ~25,950 wounded.  get your shit straight.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6550|Middle of nowhere, California

Reciprocity wrote:

that's ~3577 deaths and ~25,950 wounded.  get your shit straight.
ok, u lost me...
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6677|pimelteror.de
1. where are the numbers of all the wounded? the guys without arms and legs? those who will never have a normal life, after their service in iraq?
2. how can you compare inevitable deaths by accidents, illness and crime - with unnecessary deaths by war?
3. you can also compare these numbers with the deaths by smoking, car accidents, fast food and whatever else - there is still a difference to war casualties. nobody should be sent to another country to kill people and be killed.

this thread fails
motherdear
Member
+25|6675|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

Hurricane wrote:

What the fuck were we doing in the 80s?
the start of "the war on drugs"

south america was a very unstable area in that period (still is but we have withdrawn a lot of our soldiers from there)
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6429|North Carolina

motherdear wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

What the fuck were we doing in the 80s?
the start of "the war on drugs"

south america was a very unstable area in that period (still is but we have withdrawn a lot of our soldiers from there)
Otherwise known as "The War to Supply the CIA with Drugs"...   good ole Plan Columbia...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard