Political Alert




 
--
Boots
 
March 5th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 

Topic: Political Alert


Military losses, 1980 through 2006. These are some rather eye-opening facts. Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through today, we have lost over 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents.
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 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
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) George W years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.
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? And, I was even more confused; when I read 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 Media and our Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. 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?


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%

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%
The point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for liberal political gain). Nothing more...its all about politics and the libs are famous for turning American against American for a vote.

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

Now ask yourself two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'


'Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide) web as much as they do?'
Ensure you do your homework before you place your vote.

'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first..' ~ President Ronald Reagan
March 5th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Dang.......
March 5th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Hmm seems these numbers are in dispute as this site says they are wrong, although at least in 5.56's post the arithmetic is improved.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._clintons.html

Quote:
Actually, even counting non-combat fatalities, more military personnel died during the first six years of George Bush's tenure than during the entire eight years that Bill Clinton was in office.
Most of the numbers in this e-mail are completely made up. We were particularly amused by its bravado in providing a supposed source for the information – but anyone who bothers to check that source will find that it contradicts the information presented. The truth is that more military personnel died during the first six years of the Bush administration than died during the eight years Clinton was in office, even counting military deaths in the U.S. from accidents, murders, suicides and natural causes.
According to the Congressional Research Service report that the e-mail cites, the breakdown of fatalities by race during Operation Iraqi Freedom is more-or-less accurate, but the breakdown of total military fatalities by year (which counts both combat and non-combat fatalities) is wildly inaccurate. Here are the actual numbers in graphic form:



As you can see, the e-mail grossly distorts the numbers in several years. For instance, the e-mail claims that 2,465 military personnel died (of all causes) in 1995, but according to the CRS report (which obtained its numbers directly from the Department of Defense), you have to go all the way back to 1980 – when the military was nearly 50 percent larger than it is currently – to get close to that figure. The true figure is less than half what the e-mail purports. In point of fact, 7,500 troops died during Clinton's eight years in office. During Bush's first six years, the number was 8,792. And that excludes the 899 combat deaths in 2007, which was the deadliest year of the Iraq war for U.S. troops. (We don't yet have figures for total deaths for that year.)
Flunking Arithmetic

Even if the numbers in the e-mail were correct, which they are not, its author adds them up improperly. The eight years of Clinton's term run from 1993 to 2000, so according to the numbers the e-mail presents, Clinton's tally should be 14,107, while Bush's six years (not seven, as stated) total 7,033. That's dismal arithmetic, especially from somebody who uses these fake numbers as a basis for accusing others of lying, twisting the truth and publishing "agenda-driven reporting."

Fruit Salad

We should also note that the message is artfully worded and invites a false conclusion. It argues that the loss of U.S. military lives "from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East" is less than "the loss of military personnel" under Clinton. Thus, it attempts to compare only the deaths due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with all military deaths during Clinton's eight years. That's not even comparing apples with oranges. It's really, to use a fruit-salad metaphor, asserting that George Bush's apple collection is smaller than Bill Clinton's collection of apples and oranges.

Why So Many?

It may surprise many to learn that there are so many military deaths during peacetime. But this is just the law of averages at work.
In 1993 the military had 1.7 million men and women in uniform. During that same year, 1,175 of them died from accidents, homicide, suicide and illness. That makes the 1993 non-hostile death rate for military personnel 69.1 per 100,000. That's actually fairly low; the rate for all Americans age 20 to 29 is about 97.5. Today's military is considerably smaller, with just under 1.4 million personnel.

To make an apples-to-apples comparison, we would need to separate combat and non-combat deaths. According to the CRS, during the Clinton administration, one person in uniform died as a result of hostilities and another 75 died as a result of terrorist attacks. By contrast, during the first six years of the Bush administration, 2,596 troops died from hostilities and 55 from terrorist attacks. Looking at the non-hostile deaths (i.e., accidents, homicides, suicides and illnesses), we find that an average of 947 military personnel died each year during the Bush administration compared with 913 during the Clinton administration .

Soldiering has never been a particularly safe occupation. But it is absurd to suggest that soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are somehow safer during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than they were during the relatively peaceful Clinton administration.

-Joe Miller

Sources
Congressional Research Service. "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics," 29 June 2007.

Department of Defense. "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by
Regional Area and by Country
," 30 Sept. 1993.

Department of Defense. "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," 30 June 2007.

Kung, Hsiang-Ching Kung, et. al. "National Vital Statistics Report -- Deaths: Final Data for 2005." January 2008. Centers for Disease Control. 28 January 2008.

--
Boots
March 6th, 2008  
Team Infidel
 
 
hmm.. i may have to look into this.
March 6th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Well Done MontyB.

So the article is a fake, color me surprised.

I mean seriously. When you look at how the numbers are consistently high for Democrats and low for Republicans (each year is lower than the previous) even though a major war has been raging for the past 6 years under a GOP president, something doesn't smell right.

If passing fuzzy-math statistics supporting a Republican agenda is the best the GOP can do, its speaks volumes about their insuitability for high office.
March 21st, 2008  
errol
 
 
According to 5.56 x 45mm, 1995 was a bad year to be in the US miltary. That Clinton sure has a lot to answer for. What country had the US invaded that year?
March 22nd, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
that's why the article's a fake.
March 23rd, 2008  
Damien435
 
 
The rebuttal contains errors too, I'll just jump on the most notable though.

Quote:
Today's military is considerably smaller, with just under 1.4 million personnel.
This could be a little outdated, but the active duty military today has just a shade over 1.4 million members with almost double that in the National Guard and Reserves, so in reality the US military is close to 2.8 million members, not 1.4 million. I would not be surprised though if the activated Guard units are counted twice in those numbers so I could easily be off by a hundred thousand, but that's better than being off by 1 million plus.

EDIT: That does not however mean that I support the original post, I know that in Desert Shield and Desert Storm the combat deaths was actually far lower than the normal number of deaths during peace, but I doubt that's true this round. All things considered I think the rebuttal is more accurate than the original.
August 16th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Interesting, Thanks for that 5.56. As usual, great threads/posts.
August 16th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AikiRooster
Interesting, Thanks for that 5.56. As usual, great threads/posts.
And, also as usual, it's chain mail that's totally false.
 


Similar Topics
Pakistan's Political Coalition Means New Challenges For U.S.
Baghdad's Fissures And Mistrust Keep Political Goals Out Of Reach
Seizure Of Britons Underlines Iran's Political Split
Senator Clinton Makes Afghan Stop
American Political Shift Linked To The War Is Met With A Shrug By Baghdad's Elite