Military Losses

[Bauer]

Hope this isn't a repost. Got this in an e-mail this morning.. Interesting numbers if they are correct.....
Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006
Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the 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.

I t'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 no w 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 t he 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)
------------ --------- ------

[jeeplvr79]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

[CLYDE]

had not seen this before, but if its accurate its no real surprise. Something most people dont realize, is that in any given year we lose around 1000 service people, thru a variety of means, frome training accidents, to misadventure [car accidents and the like] to natural causes. Since we are at war, why naturally it Has to be GWs fault tho..

[Loki]

How is it that Snopes is always wrong??? :shrug:


;)

[CLYDE]

the Snopes link just points out what I said. While the numbers of the OPs piece may be skewed, the fact remains that overall, the numbers arent much different between normal, and wartime figures. I would like to be able to compare the breakdown with other war era Presidents,, such as roosevelt, truman, kennedy, johnson etc.

[Pilot]

Even if Snopes is correct, Clinton's was still a lot higher than expected and not far behind the current Bush Admin who is fighting a global war on terror.

[CLYDE]

How is it that Snopes is always wrong??? :shrug:


;)
Keep in mind, that snopes is a very liberally owned and operated site,, they are private, and are NOT impartial, Anyone that takes Snopes as the gospel truth, Or assumes they are unbiased in any way, needs their head examined.

[CLYDE]

We lost more people on D-Day, than the combined total since 80.

[Loki]

Well Freedom isn't Free, Doesn't matter which party is in the white house. Everything has a cost, Just Thank God we have brave people willing to defend (and die for if neccessary) our way of life.

:ribbon:

[CannonBall]

I was going to try and refute the bias of the snopes article, (15% is ?significant,? but 20% isn?t?) but reading the report shows the original post it just plain wrong, and not really worth the time trying to figure it out.
-Nate

[CLYDE]

Nope it doesnt matter in the least, every loss is a tragedy to someone, and to the country as a whole, wether from operational loss, or accidental loss, each one of those people was important to someone.

[Bauer]

but reading the report shows the original post it just plain wrong, and not really worth the time trying to figure it out.
-Nate

I wasn't going to search all over the webby to see if it was true either. But even the snopes numbers were pretty high considering the situation.

[CannonBall]

I read the report and they just pulled the numbers off active duty deaths, seems like the original post did some cherry picking. Either way, the snopes article has a left bias but I just don?t feel like getting into it.

There was an article about the I70 toll yesterday that was so insanely left biased, I wanted to post it, but decided against posting anything else about the I70 toll.
-Nate

[Bauer]

How bout this one.?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

[CLYDE]

linky no workie

[jeeplvr79]

here ya go... http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

there were some spaces where they didn't need to be

[Bauer]

Page 11 was kind of shocking. Self inflicted seems high..

[Gags]

Nice post.

I don't know whether it's true or not but I heard about some "tampering" with fatality counts. Like getting shot in the back of the head doesn't count and such.

[Jeff Mason]

Another point to factor in would be the relative size of the armed forces during the presidencies. I seem to recall that during Clinton's terms, the Armed Forces were drawn down, and that during Bush's terms, they have been increasing.

None of this trivializes the death of a service person, regardless of why/how/where they died, but it does show, to me anyway, that there has not been a wholesale increase in total deaths in the military overall.

Besides, I think if you were to ask any Marine/soldier/sailor, they would tell you that they would rather die fighting for something than sleeping in a barracks or on board ship at port...

[IronMonkey]

Well Freedom isn't Free, Doesn't matter which party is in the white house. Everything has a cost, Just Thank God we have brave people willing to defend (and die for if neccessary) our way of life.

:ribbon:

Gosh, that is so true.

Not only have thousands paid with their lives for this war, but all our children and grandchildren will bear the burden of paying off the cost of borrowing to fund this trillion dollar excursion. Democrat or Republican, them taxes are going way, way up, cause the +$1B per day of interest alone must be paid to Japan, China, OPEC, and the other major foreign holders of US debt (much of which is domestic).

So there's the two costs: lives and lifestyle. And I'd venture to say a life has a definite financial worth in the good ol' US of A. For the Iraqi war, there's the the standard $100,000 "death gratuity" and the soldier-elected $400,000 GI life insurance. For civilians, there's whatever life insurance you got, or if your death was due to someone's negligence, and they've got assets and/or insurance, then the court has a wicked formula to decide your life value.

In the end there's just a "due to/from" account and someone has to pay the bill. What is going to be tough is to figure out if the Iraqi war was worth the investment. I'll leave that to the history books. Meanwhile, I have to go supervise a coven of lesbian witches.

[IronMonkey]

Y'all may appreciate this disturbing vid my Dad sent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrCsTMokTU

[denverd0n]

Even though snopes definitely is, very often, biased in a liberal/Democratic direction, in this case they provide a link to the original report. Clearly the numbers in the first post in this thread are simply wrong.

Nonetheless, even though there were fewer military casualties during the Clinton years than during the Bush Jr. years, it is still interesting (and I think some people would have to admit a bit surprising) that the difference is pretty small. Even with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total for Bush Jr. is only a couple of thousand more than for Clinton. The difference is LESS than the total number of Americans killed on 9/11 and LESS than the total number of Americans killed in the Pearl Harbor attack. I think that is significant.

Just to put things in perspective... Some time back I wrote a paper on Marshal Phillipe P?tain of France. He was the general in charge of the defense of Verdun during WWI. The battle of Verdun lasted just about ten months. In that ten months nearly three-quarters of a billion soldiers were killed in total. About 350,000 on the French side, and about 400,000 on the German side. In TEN MONTHS! Think about that a little bit.

[Budman]

[QUOTE=Jeff Mason;1046601]Another point to factor in would be the relative size of the armed forces during the presidencies. I seem to recall that during Clinton's terms, the Armed Forces were drawn down, and that during Bush's terms, they have been increasing.
QUOTE]

Actually I think you will find that the numbers have been on a steady decline since the clinton days.



Here is an interesting Casualty factoid for you. During the allied envasion of italy (Operation Avalanche) the allies suffered 2,009 killed, 7,050 wounded, and 3,501 missing in just 13 days.

American casualties at Omaha on D-Day numbered around 3,000 out of 34,000 men, most in the first few hours

The Battle for Iwo Jima claimed 6,821 dead, 19,189 wounded, and 494 missing in just 35 days of fighting

The totals for the battle for the Pacific are USA: 106,207 killed, 248,316 wounded and missing

The Korean War: 36,516 dead (including 2,830 non-combat) 92,134 wounded 8,176 MIA 7,245 POW in 3 years and 2 days

Vietnam: US dead: 58,209; 2,000 missing; wounded: 305,000 in 10 years or so

These numbers are just for the US, not our allies, or our enemies.

While these numbers do nothing to make the deaths of these great men and women less tragic, I think they say somthing for today's military men and women;s ability to make the other poor sumbitch die for his country/cause.

As for the origional numbers, Well both sources used numbers to make a political statement for thier side of the argument. The numbers are still interesting.

[CannonBall]

...they're talking about this, if not the specific email, on mike rosen right now. Well, it's open lines, they're all over the place.
-Nate

[OrangeCrush]

Keep in mind, that snopes is a very liberally owned and operated site,, they are private, and are NOT impartial, Anyone that takes Snopes as the gospel truth, Or assumes they are unbiased in any way, needs their head examined.

Be following the posted snopes link you can clearly see the bias, they try to remove all accidental deaths and try to make the story something different than it is. Fact remains more people died while on active duty during CLintons term than from GW's

[CannonBall]

Be following the posted snopes link you can clearly see the bias, they try to remove all accidental deaths and try to make the story something different than it is. Fact remains more people died while on active duty during CLintons term than from GW's

Nope, read the linked report.
-Nate

[Budman]

Y'all may appreciate this disturbing vid my Dad sent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrCsTMokTU

While I question some of the translation, The people in that video looked like simple peace loving god fearing individuals.

[Budman]

More factoids for you. WWII is estimated to have cost 288 billion. In today's money, the cost to the U.S. would be over three trillion dollars (at 288 billion 1945 dollars) or about $3,189,752,033,348.

We managed to recover from that.

[Gags]

More factoids for you. WWII is estimated to have cost 288 billion. In today's money, the cost to the U.S. would be over three trillion dollars (at 288 billion 1945 dollars) or about $3,189,752,033,348.

We managed to recover from that.

Of course, but that was a "World" war fighting against two Countries who wanted the World. We have never engaged in such a war since.

[CLYDE]

only because noone has been allowed to get organized enough to try it again, there is something to be said for destabilization.:D

[CannonBall]

Some would argue we are in a global war against islamic fascism and terrorism, and the outcome of this war is as significant to our way of life as wwII.
-Nate

[LONEWOLF]

Lost more fighting ourselves (civil war), still sad but unfortunately it is part of freedom. I do believe we do a better job today causing the other guy to die for his country instead. What would the numbers be "IF" we were still fighting the war today like we did during WWII. Alot higher! So with all this said I personally think we have improved the survival rate of a soldier dramatically, still it happens it's war. The day we can fight a war without suffering casualties will be a great day indeed. My hats off to all who have served, I salute you :ribbon:

[Budman]

Of course, but that was a "World" war fighting against two Countries who wanted the World. We have never engaged in such a war since.

Really? I would argue just the opposite. We are fighting a world war, the problem is that he enemy is not as noble as the Germans were. This enemy hides behind pregnant women, and children, and blows up roadside bombs. They fly airplanes filled with people into buildings filled with even more innocent civilian people. They do all this in the name of thier religion. They are willing to kill anyone who does not believe. They have a plan, it is for world dominance, and they are on thier way to executing this plan. If we fail to stop them, I don't even want to imagine what out future will look like.


Some would argue we are in a global war against islamic fascism and terrorism, and the outcome of this war is as significant to our way of life as wwII.
-Nate

Guess I would be one of said people.

[Budman]

only because noone has been allowed to get organized enough to try it again, there is something to be said for destabilization.:D

Clyde, I would say that the enemy is organizing. They are just smarter than some we have fought in the past. They are taking over western countries one after another. Once they have a enough resources, and connections, I think all hell is going to break loose. All they have to do is increase thier foothold europe.

[CLYDE]

Clyde, I would say that the enemy is organizing. They are just smarter than some we have fought in the past. They are taking over western countries one after another. Once they have a enough resources, and connections, I think all hell is going to break loose. All they have to do is increase thier foothold europe.
No arguement there.. I was refering to govts.

[Gags]

Really? I would argue just the opposite. We are fighting a world war, the problem is that he enemy is not as noble as the Germans were. This enemy hides behind pregnant women, and children, and blows up roadside bombs. They fly airplanes filled with people into buildings filled with even more innocent civilian people. They do all this in the name of thier religion. They are willing to kill anyone who does not believe. They have a plan, it is for world dominance, and they are on thier way to executing this plan. If we fail to stop them, I don't even want to imagine what out future will look like.




Guess I would be one of said people.


Of course, that's a cultural thing. To the extremists there is no sense of guilty and innocent. Resistance by any means is the order of the day. Killing is killing but we get offended (me included) when it's not done in a culturally acceptable way. Even Sarkozy said recently that the Taliban must be stopped at all costs. And we all know how I feel about religous extremism and the negative effects that brings. Fighting an enemy willing to blow themselves up is a tough business because breaking their will to continue turns into a war of attrition.

[Gags]

Some would argue we are in a global war against islamic fascism and terrorism, and the outcome of this war is as significant to our way of life as wwII.
-Nate

When I mentioned that we have not fought a war like WWII I meant the style of engagement. We friggin burned Dresden out of payback. It was total war where everyone was involved in one way or another. Entire peoples engaged and the level of brutallity was severe but necessary. Imagine if we bombed the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan until the air caught fire and a "perfect fire storm" that actually created winds sucking things outside into it.

[CannonBall]

Uhh, while on some levels I might be agaist that, it would be AWESOME. We really eff'd up dresden.
-Nate

[Yota]

Another point to factor in would be the relative size of the armed forces during the presidencies. I seem to recall that during Clinton's terms, the Armed Forces were drawn down, and that during Bush's terms, they have been increasing.

None of this trivializes the death of a service person, regardless of why/how/where they died, but it does show, to me anyway, that there has not been a wholesale increase in total deaths in the military overall.

Besides, I think if you were to ask any Marine/soldier/sailor, they would tell you that they would rather die fighting for something than sleeping in a barracks or on board ship at port...


Realtive size of the military was my first thought too.

And even beyond that, it's more important to look at deaths relative to the number of troops in active combat zones as a function of time. Soldiers dies in accidents just like any workers die in accidents. But the instructive comparison would be deaths relative to the number of troops in combat zones (not necessarily in combat).

I think by any measure our number of troop deaths is WAY LOW compared to any previous war of this duration and magnitude.

[Gags]

Uhh, while on some levels I might be agaist that, it would be AWESOME. We really eff'd up dresden.
-Nate

How far do we go to break the enemies' will to continue? Right now, it seems not far enough. I'm not for killing innocent people on purpose but some of these people need to realize WTF we're talking about. Hell, France is talking about it.

[Steve]

Killing is killing but we get offended (me included) when it's not done in a culturally acceptable way.

What's a "culturally acceptable" way of killing people? That answer depends completely on which side you're on, doesn't it? We still want to fight terrorists using rules of engagement and treatment originated long ago. Terrorists ignore those and, in many cases, use them against us.

I'm not in favor of stooping to their level, but when you play by the rules and your opponent doesn't, you will lose, whether it's war or a game.

[CLYDE]

Ok, Im non religious, However, I think its about time to announce a new crusade. thats what it has taken in the past when the Muslims have reached this point. Past crusades were successful, so maybe time to pny up and go thru and kill everything that moves again.. Yeah Im an azzhole, I admit it, but damnit, something has gotta happen soon to stem the tide, or the world will become an even uglier place to live, than it already is.

[CLYDE]

We could call it the Sunshine crusade:D

[Gags]

What's a "culturally acceptable" way of killing people? That answer depends completely on which side you're on, doesn't it? We still want to fight terrorists using rules of engagement and treatment originated long ago. Terrorists ignore those and, in many cases, use them against us.

I'm not in favor of stooping to their level, but when you play by the rules and your opponent doesn't, you will lose, whether it's war or a game.

Agreed. Western culture sees a difference between "innocent people" and "combatants." The people we are fighting now do not and are willing to use children to fight. (then again we use young people but not 13 year olds)

I'm never in favor of purposely killing innocent people. Accidents happen, however. But, if you're in a combat area you have to realize the risks you make by staying.

Bombs make a statement. Being bombed is like going through hell. Bomb them every 20 minutes for a week or so and we'll see.

[Budman]

When I mentioned that we have not fought a war like WWII I meant the style of engagement. We friggin burned Dresden out of payback. It was total war where everyone was involved in one way or another. Entire peoples engaged and the level of brutallity was severe but necessary. Imagine if we bombed the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan until the air caught fire and a "perfect fire storm" that actually created winds sucking things outside into it.

Great post. Up until the Korean war, We fought with winning being the main goal. Win at all costs. Maybe we should think about going back to that mentality.

We could call it the Sunshine crusade:D

I like that. I think we should start printing the flyers.

[1BADKJ]

Ok, Im non religious, However, I think its about time to announce a new crusade. thats what it has taken in the past when the Muslims have reached this point. Past crusades were successful, so maybe time to pny up and go thru and kill everything that moves again.. Yeah Im an azzhole, I admit it, but damnit, something has gotta happen soon to stem the tide, or the world will become an even uglier place to live, than it already is.

At least I'm not the only one that thinks what you stated,something very drastic needs to happen.First thing is the media needs to disappear from that part of the world.

[LONEWOLF]

Give them a 1 way ticket to meet Allah

[denverd0n]

Maybe we should think about going back to that mentality.
Maybe we should, but there isn't the least little chance in hell that we will. Not at this point, anyway.