Fatalities/ Military Losses, 1980 through 2006
william boyd
current
administration, this report should open some eyes.
Military losses, 1980 through 2006
(ttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)
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:
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): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 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!
And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of
President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392
US military fatalities! 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 marching-orders for
their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is
clear it comes 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%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in
Iraqi Freedom:
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. . .until it became clear to me that the point
here is
that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political
gain). Nothing more.
It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning
American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his
comments
just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks'
voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her
Super
Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen'
to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I
might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own
husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more
soldiers to
death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama
when
we actually had him detained.
I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent
Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the
leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the
dividers from the uniters.
Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are
listening)
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)
--
Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam, Life
Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA
Islander
>
> (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)
>
I think that you have some explaining to do. Here are the actual
numbers from Tables 4 and 5 of the report that you cited:
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1982 .......... 2,319 (Reagan Year)
1983 .......... 2,465 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1985 .......... 2,252 (Reagan Year)
1986 .......... 1,984 (Reagan Year)
1987 .......... 1,983 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,507 (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 .......... 1,040 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 974 (Clinton Year)
1997 .......... 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 827 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 796 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 758 (Clinton Year)
2001 .......... 891 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 999 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,228 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,874 (George W Year)
2005 .......... 1,942 (George W Year)
2006........... 1,858 (George W Year)
The 2007 number that you gave was actually not even in the report (dated
June 29, 2007).
In addition, you left out several of the Reagan years.
In summary,
17,201 deaths during the 8 year Reagan Administration
6,223 deaths during the 4 year Bush H W Administration
7,500 deaths during the 8 year Clinton Administration
8,792 deaths SO FAR IN JUST THE FIRST 6 YEARS of the Bush W Administration
I don't know where you got your figures from, but they certainly were
not from this report!
As to the rest of your spin, it just doesn't support whatever argument
you were attempting to make.
Anyone who attempts to gain political points by misrepresenting
statistics on military deaths is...well, I think you know!
Islander
> [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:06:38 -0600, william boyd
> it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate
> the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who
> have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those
> numbers, they are in who they would vote for.
How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught
tweaking the numbers.
Islander
> [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:49:55 -0800, Islander
> wrong years.
Oh, I see now! He gave Clinton credit for some of the Reagan years
which he also conveniently left out of what he posted for Reagan. How
do you suppose that happened? Gheeese!
I think we should let Hoppy explain this one himself.
Like I said, "Anyone who attempts to gain political points by
George Z. Bush
When the people they support routinely lie (remember WMDs?), they find it
easy to do it as well. So they make up numbers as they go along, attribute
them to a real report that doesn't contain them, and get people to believe
them because they sound convincing and authentic, that is until someone like
you comes along and takes the trouble to check them out.
What the knot heads don't even realize is that the numbers they produced for
the Dubya years didn't even come up to the numbers that the Bush
administration itself admitted to during their Iraq adventure.
Yet, if nobody had bothered to vet those numbers, they'd have gotten away
with it...... so thanks for your public service.
George Z.
william boyd
> [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0800, Islander
> <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> jimstevens wrote:
>>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)
>>> Don't expect the usual suspects on the left to have much to say about
>>> it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate
>>> the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who
>>> have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those
>>> numbers, they are in who they would vote for.
>> How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught
>> tweaking the numbers.
> comment on where I think he pulled the incorrect data from. The
> numbers came from the mid 80's I recall.
I have been duped and reposted those figures with out checking against
the official report. It is my error because I posted with out
verification. What else can I say.
Islander
Thanks for clarifying that, Hoppie.
You might want to lay this on the head of wherever or whoever you got it
from and next time consider that you might be blamed for what you post,
no matter where you got it.
Islander
> [Default] On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:58:46 -0800, Islander
Just a word of advice, no charge!
Course, you're just defensive because you bought into it without
question. Your initial reply to Hoppie is above. Kind of puts you in
the same category as Hoppie - gullible when it suits your politics!