POLITICS - Military Losses

[Dastook]

Interesting reading!


Military losses, 1980 through 2006

Here is the reference document: 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 HW Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW 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)

Clinton years (1993-2000) 7,500 deaths

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)

George W years (2001-2006): 8,792 deaths

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so are most people.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the
Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.
Clinton's presidency -- when America wasn't even involved in a war?

Even more surprising to mos t readers is that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military
fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our news media and our politicians
will present only the numbers which support their agenda. The latest census of Americans shows the following 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%

Compare this to the fatalities by Race over the past three years during Operation Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ..................................... 10.74%
Black .......................................... 9.67%
Asian ........................................... 1.81%
Native American ........................... 1.09%
Other ............................................ 0.33%

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics
and the leftist newspress is infamous for perverting and twisting the truth to get liberals elected.

Now ask yourself two questions:(1)Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these? and (2)Why do the mainstream media hate the Internet/World Wide Web as much as they do?

Please do your homework before you select your next Commander-In-Chief.
__________________

[PPpastordon]

Dastook;
Did you notice that only whites (Europeans) and Native Americans have fatality figures larger than their percent of population. Why, how can that be? Makes a man feel real good about being made up from a little of each!

I do not feel at all confused. The difference was that I am surprised that the Clinton figures are that low.
In defense of Jimmy's reputation (and in what I hope is not in my bad or distorted understanding), his Nobel Peace Prize had little or nothing to do with what he did in/for this nation, but for Egypt, Israel and Middle-East peace.

While we want to believe the mainstream media is not biased, we must face the fact that they are extremely biased! Being biased, one must also face the fact that they have their own agenda. Therefore, one can never assume their version of "truth" to be correct.

Mainstream media should always state their reporting as "IMHO," just as this is IMHO! Quite obviously (to me), they report someone's opinion instead of the truth.
Grace and Peace.

[Greg807]

The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost about 61 million people, and the Axis lost 11 millionI. All military lives are irreplaceable god bless them all but compared to the big one that lasted just under six years the last 16 years with all due respect kinda seems like a skirmish, thanks to technology.

[FWiedner]

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics

The point, and the issue that arm-chair hawks overlook, is that all of these lives were spent under treaty and within the boundaries of UN sanction and international law EXCEPT those involving the actions of G.W. Bush, who set our nation's military on a unilateral course of war for the single purpose of aggressive conquest under the guise "premptive defense".

The majority of peace loving nations in the world were behind Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton in those martial ventures. American lives were spent by international treaty and according to the law. Not so with G.W. Bush.

IMO, even in light the existence of islamo-facist terrorism in the modern world, GWB deserves every criticism that can be heaped upon him for those American lives spent in an illegal war of personal revenge and ill-gotten gain. He has maliciously attacked our civil rights and the U.S. Constitution and has grievously damaged our economy and national reputation in the international community. A pox on his house.

[Dastook]

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics

The point, and the issue that arm-chair hawks overlook, is that all of these lives were spent under treaty and within the boundaries of UN sanction and international law EXCEPT those involving the actions of G.W. Bush, who set our nation's military on a unilateral course of war for the single purpose of aggressive conquest under the guise "premptive defense".

The majority of peace loving nations in the world were behind Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton in those martial ventures. American lives were spent by international treaty and according to the law. Not so with G.W. Bush

I beg to differ Sir. I could argue all day with what you just wrote but I will just point out a couple of errors. First contrary to what you wish G.W. Bush did, he has broken "ZERO" laws. Panama and Grenada were not U.N. sanctioned. Neither was the failed raid in Iran by J. Carter.

[Greg807]

Freedom will spread in the middle east because of the actions of the west and its allies, A hundred years from now Bush 43 will be a hero and FWiedner will be.....?

[El Chivo]

do these statistics include training accidents and car wrecks and such?

I read something that showed American soldiers are more at risk in peacetime than in Iraq because they have a lot of accidents.

I'm thinking back and I just can't remember much fighting going on in the Carter years. Clinton had Bosnia, G Bush Sr. had Desert Storm, Reagan went after the terrorists, but I don't remember much except for the hostage rescue attempt for Carter.

If the figure includes lives lost in training, that might account for it.

[El Chivo]

and has grievously damaged our economy

where do you get this? in what way is our economy grievously damaged?

[PaulB]

he has broken "ZERO" laws

Bush (like virtually all other presidents) has broken the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, so frequently it is pointless to try to enumerate it. Hell, he called it "just a g** d*** piece of paper!" Even his solicitor general's opinion on the Heller case is a violation of the Constitution.

I wonder how many Iraqis have been killed, defending their own country from the invaders or in the civil war ignited by the invaders. And Afghans for that matter.

Oh sorry, I forgot. They don't count.

As H.L. Mencken put it, "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."

[BruceB]

[quote="FWiedner
The point, and the issue that arm-chair hawks overlook, is that all of these lives were spent under treaty and within the boundaries of UN sanction and international law EXCEPT those involving the actions of G.W. Bush, who set our nation's military on a unilateral course of war for the single purpose of aggressive conquest under the guise "premptive defense".
[/quote]

I hadn't realized that it was okay for large numbers American service men to be killed as long as the U.N. sanctions the action. I also hadn't realized you wished to live under the auspices of the United Nations.

[RIHMFIRE]

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics

The point, and the issue that arm-chair hawks overlook, is that all of these lives were spent under treaty and within the boundaries of UN sanction and international law EXCEPT those involving the actions of G.W. Bush, who set our nation's military on a unilateral course of war for the single purpose of aggressive conquest under the guise "premptive defense".

The majority of peace loving nations in the world were behind Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton in those martial ventures. American lives were spent by international treaty and according to the law. Not so with G.W. Bush.

IMO, even in light the existence of islamo-facist terrorism in the modern world, GWB deserves every criticism that can be heaped upon him for those American lives spent in an illegal war of personal revenge and ill-gotten gain. He has maliciously attacked our civil rights and the U.S. Constitution and has grievously damaged our economy and national reputation in the international community. A pox on his house.

You are truely amazing.....
You dont have the first clue....
Personal revenge....I dont think so.....
Illgotten gains.........name them...
None of my civil rights have been attacked.....
Liberals have damaged our economy...by forcing banks
to give loans to people who dont deserve them....so they dont
look racist...
Liberal media has done more damaged the economy by
constantly saying its bad...day-in and day out for the last
year...just because of the upcoming election...which they do
every 4 years
And I dont give a flying @#$% what the international community
thinks of us...Every time there is a problem anywhere in the world
they turn to us....to solve the problem and then expect us to pay for it....
If you dont like it here...GET the HELL OUT...

[Leverdude]

Freedom will spread in the middle east because of the actions of the west and its allies, A hundred years from now Bush 43 will be a hero and FWiedner will be.....?

Now I'm not saying Fwieds right, tho I dont think he is very far off at all.
But if you think what we are doing will lead to a free middle east your nuts.
We're working in one pissant country in the midst of a bunch of bloodthirsty backwards countries.You cant change a mindset of an entire region just by overthrowing one country & occupying it.
Bush is alot of things, hero aint one. Are his kids over there? His grandkids?
Nah, he's just a president & not a very good one at that.

[Leverdude]

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics

The point, and the issue that arm-chair hawks overlook, is that all of these lives were spent under treaty and within the boundaries of UN sanction and international law EXCEPT those involving the actions of G.W. Bush, who set our nation's military on a unilateral course of war for the single purpose of aggressive conquest under the guise "premptive defense".

The majority of peace loving nations in the world were behind Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton in those martial ventures. American lives were spent by international treaty and according to the law. Not so with G.W. Bush.

IMO, even in light the existence of islamo-facist terrorism in the modern world, GWB deserves every criticism that can be heaped upon him for those American lives spent in an illegal war of personal revenge and ill-gotten gain. He has maliciously attacked our civil rights and the U.S. Constitution and has grievously damaged our economy and national reputation in the international community. A pox on his house.

You are truely amazing.....
You dont have the first clue....
Personal revenge....I dont think so.....
Illgotten gains.........name them...
None of my civil rights have been attacked.....
Liberals have damaged our economy...by forcing banks
to give loans to people who dont deserve them....so they dont
look racist...
Liberal media has done more damaged the economy by
constantly saying its bad...day-in and day out for the last
year...just because of the upcoming election...which they do
every 4 years
And I dont give a flying @#$% what the international community
thinks of us...Every time there is a problem anywhere in the world
they turn to us....to solve the problem and then expect us to pay for it....
If you dont like it here...GET the HELL OUT...

Dont be confused. Bush IS a liberal. Fweid never said he idn't like it here.
You might not like his opinion but the truth is we need many more lik him willing to question things regardless of how others feel. Its easy to be all happy because your man's in the white house & point at the other side. Not so easy to look at YOUR party & tear it apart when its broken. Thats what needs doing.

[bunklocoempire]

Dastook wrote:

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics
and the leftist newspress is infamous for perverting and twisting the truth to get liberals elected.

Your kidding me right? Mainstream media distorting the truth, yes, president's effort to protect the United States...come on.

At least have the courtesy to call it (Iraq) what it is, that is, protecting American business interests, that is, protecting an oil market. Are we (you and others) so afraid of terrorists that we'll look past doing right by our Constitution and the practice of "just wars"? If pre-emptive wars are your passion don't expect the 2nd Ammendment to stay around because that's exactly what the gun grabbers arguments entail. WMDs are different from small arms? Maybe, but the argument is the same, keeping weapons out of people's hands because of the way they might use them, through pre-emptive invasion or home invasion. It don't get much simpler than that.

Bunkloco

[kirkwood]

I sure wish people would take 30 seconds to look at the congressional report and see the actual numbers (Table 4 and repeated in Table 5; http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) before they repost the WRONG numbers that comes in this email attachment. If someone is going to use the deaths of US troops to make some political statement, then at least use the actual numbers instead of pulling bogus numbers out of thin air.

And if you are going to repost this without checking the numbers yourself, then you are dishonoring our fallen warriors every bit as much as the original author of this stuff.

By the way, when you go to the congressional report, be sure to also look through Table 5 and get some idea as to how these fatalities are broken down by cause of death. You get a different picture than the one being painted by the author of this email attachment.

[Dastook]

Interesting reading!


Military losses, 1980 through 2006

Here is the reference document: 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 HW Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW 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)

Clinton years (1993-2000) 7,500 deaths

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)

George W years (2001-2006): 8,792 deaths

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so are most people.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the
Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.
Clinton's presidency -- when America wasn't even involved in a war?

Even more surprising to mos t readers is that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military
fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our news media and our politicians
will present only the numbers which support their agenda. The latest census of Americans shows the following 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%

Compare this to the fatalities by Race over the past three years during Operation Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ..................................... 10.74%
Black .......................................... 9.67%
Asian ........................................... 1.81%
Native American ........................... 1.09%
Other ............................................ 0.33%

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to distort the truth in order to undermine the current president's effort to protect the United States. Nothing more. It's all about politics
and the leftist newspress is infamous for perverting and twisting the truth to get liberals elected.

Now ask yourself two questions:(1)Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these? and (2)Why do the mainstream media hate the Internet/World Wide Web as much as they do?

Please do your homework before you select your next Commander-In-Chief.
__________________

Kirkwood is exactly correct. I am sorry. I have rerun the numbers, corrected them and am apologizing. This post was not done this way intentionally. I received this information from a trusted friend who is a banker for hell’s sake. I had no reason until now he would be wrong. Luckily I don’t bank with him. I have learned my lesson as a rookie poster. Please except my apology.

[txpete]

I could type a page here but I would get banned .
pete