[GTKrockeTT]

Just passing info along, don't get mad at the messenger...

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007

Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981........... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988........... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989........... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990........... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997........... 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 ......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999........... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002........... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007.............. 899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war! (Unless you include Bosnia or the disgrace of Mogadishu , Somalia when Clinton failed to respond to terrorists. Remember 'Blackhawk Down'?)

And, I was even more shocked when I read that20in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! From what? How?

I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda. Could it be from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade?

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by race:

European descent ........................69.12%
Hispanic.......................................12.5%
Black.................... ......................12.3%
Asian............................................ 3.7%
Native American............................1.0%
Other.............................................2.6%

Many media lead us to feel the military death ratio is off balanced compared to the distribution by race in America . Here are the fatalities by RACE over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom. Do the comparison yourself.

European descent (white) ..........74.31%
Hispanic...................................10.74%
Black .........................................9.67%
Asian........................................ 1.81%
Native American....................... 1.09%
Other....................................... 0.33%

I was surprised again. Our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more. It's all about politics.

I hope that during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher:


The facts from the spin,
The spinners from the leaders,
Those who seek even more power from those that seek justice,
And the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf ;

 

[CADavebert]

Interesting.

I am surprised of the difference in deaths for years with and without conflict. Having been in the military, I do know that there were A LOT of accidental deaths during peace time in the past, and that prior to the conflicts, there were initiatives to reduce these. I would assume that it seems to have worked, IF these numbers are an accurate reflection.

 

[FJ-Piper]

I question the credibility of these numbers. It just doesn't add up. these numbers imply that in times of non war there are so many accidental deaths that it equals combat related deaths and suicide which is always higher during war time???????? Also these numbers imply that there are less accidental deaths during wartime? hahahahaha BS! it's a redumblican/bush lover number generator that came up with those. IMO And for the record, i am neither redumblican or dumbicrat, but have historically voted redumblican.

 

[raYGunn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

 

[Thexyl]

The link listed in the original post that is supposed to corroborate this info appears to contradict it instead.

 

[CADavebert]

Yeah, the numbers in Table 4 don't match what was listed. Way off from about 2003 to now.

However, the general point being made is fairly held up by Table 4, just not as dramatically.

I like that my "accident" info holds true. I was in from 86 to 93, and there is a pretty sharp drop over that period.

 

[FJ-Piper]

OK, I see the issue now. As pointed out by the OP,

I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting.

OK, so why didn't you post the information in CRS-8 and CRS-9? They show the reason the deaths were higher then: (Accidental Deaths, Illness and Homocide).

Talk about spin, it would appear the OP is attempting to convey that deaths are lower because of having a Redumblican in office verses a Dumbocrat.

My math shows: Clinton years total deaths is 7500, while George W is at 8792 in 2006 and he aint done yet...

I especially like the bit at the end of the OP:

I hope that during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher:


The facts from the spin,
The spinners from the leaders,
Those who seek even more power from those that seek justice,
And the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

Exactly! This is why I'm voting for an Obamanation... Muhahahahahahaha I am a little nervous though, I've never voted Dumbocrat before, I hope it's the same process and I don't have to go into some secret back room to cast my vote after passing many strange rituals...

 

[Fjamming]

Interesting data Doug.

The media is certainly biased. I'm going to hold my political views private, but thank you for posting that info.

 

[GTKrockeTT]

Interesting data Doug.

The media is certainly biased. I'm going to hold my political views private, but thank you for posting that info.

What, we're not going to turn this into the blue room? ;D