I understand that moving0target (how can we abbreviate your name dude???). So if I randomly pick 100.000 deaths in a specific year, say 1987, reagardless of which 100.000 I chose.. 80 would be military deaths? What an odd choice to do social statistics with... I would have used absolute numbers instead of relative numbers. I mean if I'd go to Sun City Arizona, chances are quite big there won't be 80 dead soldiers on that specific 100.000.... just many old people dying of old age.

Originally Posted by tomtom22

Lifted from the source you provided:

How did Reagan lose more troops than Bush Sr?

FTE is another way of saying "man year" i.e. the graph shows how many soldiers died for every 100,000 man years worked in the US military, in each of the years concerned.

Originally Posted by Kirruth

FTE is another way of saying "man year" i.e. the graph shows how many soldiers died for every 100,000 man years worked in the US military, in each of the years concerned.

Bloody hell, you're right! But who in his right mind would use FTE's as a variable? I mean you are comparing dead body to the amount of hours worked. How many men do you need to work 100.000 houres? Is this on yearly basis, does this include partimers, etc.? Why don't they keep the variable the same. So many men in the armed forces of which so many died. That would make it easier for me...... (Or am I the only one who has this problem?)

Why the Clinton's numbers are represented by only 1993-96?

I'm sorry BUT I really hate this topic.

I don't give a sh*t what kind of figures you stack up next to a presidents name ... it doesn't mean a g*ddamn thing.

The questions you MUST ask yourself are, were these deaths really NECESSARY and were they in a GOOD cause?

One death next to GW's name, is one death too many ... the invasion of Iraq wasn't really necessary. Iraq did NOT attack us (nor) were they aligned with the forces that attacked us on 9/11.

So ... that makes the butcher's bill for Bush Jr, a veritable blood bath that can be laid directly at his feet for NO other reason than he had a personal reason for the invasion. "Vendetta" for a President of the United States is NOT a valid reason to commit troops to a war with another country.


Discussion of "kill" statistics really doesn't resolve any discussion UNLESS you also include the reasons for the conflict. One death for invalid reasons is a crime ... 500,000 deaths to protect the Union, is blood well shed.

The Tree of Freedom must be watered by the blood of our young ... we often use this adage to explain how young men through the history of this country have ALWAYS been willing to die defending our way of life. Today is NO difference.

My point is ... I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THEY REALLY DIED FOR THE RIGHT REASONS ... NOT FOR THE PERSONAL REVENGE OF A PRESSIDENT.

Ok Chief, my right reason for joining the Army AFTER the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Saddam was an evil, sadistic son-of-a-bitch who needed to be removed from office and rather than be putting on trial this balls should have been cut off with a rusty butterknife and they should be rammed down his throat so he chokes on them. I joined the Army and volunteered to go to Iraq because I believe in things such as freedom, justice, equality, democracy, all of which were being trampled by Saddam. Now I agree that Iraq is not the only country that we should go after, but if I make a list I will be labeled as a "war hawk" and people (probably yourself included.) will try and denounce me for seeking to bring the rights I have joined all my life to these people. Here's a little taste of what my list would include: North Korea and Sudan. However I am a realist, I realize that there are some things that are beyond the capabilities of even the United States and there are some things that just aren't worth it. Democracy in North Korea for instance. Is it worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, milllions of Chinese and tens of millions Koreans? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by boris116

Why the Clinton's numbers are represented by only 1993-96?

Because the figues are explicitly referred to every first Presidential term.

I agree with Chief entirely, iraq was never neccessary. GW has thrown away quite a few american lives by his mistake. Because iraq certaintly posed no threat to the world or had any part in 9/11 it should not have been included in the "War on Terror". Support the troops by all means but don't support a president who pushed and pushed for a war which needn't have taken place in which lives needn't have been lost.

I'm all for freedom and democracy but not for superpowers to declare war on shoddy grounds willy nilly and ruin innocent peoples lives. If iraq was attacked in the name of freedom then you go after ALL countries who are on the list or be labeled as a hypocrite. You can't pick and choose here.This is not how a superpower should behave.

Support the troops, not the president, its common sense.

Someone easily forgets the fact that Congress and a large large large part of the Dems agreed on the war on Iraq. It wasn't just W.