We had more military casualties during the Clinton than duirng Bush

[Dumbsheet]

Someone sent me this...

Our men and women serving in the Mideast have done more with fewer casualties than any military in history.. You will be surprised. Why has the media not complained before the Iraq war? These are some rather eye-opening facts. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:

1980 .......... 2,392

1981 .......... 2,380

1982 .......... 2,318

1983 .......... 2,465

1984 .......... 1,999

1985 .......... 2,252

1986 .......... 1,984

1987 .......... 1,983

1988 .......... 1,819

1989 .......... 1,636

1990 .......... 1,508

1991 .......... 1,787

1992 .......... 1,293

1993 .......... 1,213

1994 .......... 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 .......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 .......... 826

1999 .......... 795

2000 .......... 774

2001 .......... 890

2002 .......... 1007

2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*

2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*

2005 .......... 919*

2006 .......... 920*

* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr Clinton's presidency? Were we at war? Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? Especially look at 1980 during President Jimmy Carter's (Nobel Peace Prize winner) term -- there were 2,392 US military fatalities. Some of the heaviest deaths occurred during Ronald Reagan's two terms without a major conflict taking place (biggest loss was the Beirut bombing). What this clearly indicates is that our media and some politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts that support their agenda-driven reporting. Another fact our media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.

Wrong again - The latest demographics show the following:

European descent (white) ..... 69.12%

Hispanic .... 12.5%

African American ..... 12.3%

Asian ..... 3.7%

Native American ..... 1.0%

Other ..... 2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European descent (white) ..... 74.31%

Hispanic ..... 10.74%

African American ..... 9.67%

Asian ..... 1.81%

Native American ... .. 1.09%

Other ..... 2.33%

I sure wish we could get a TRUE picture in the media rather than the slant we seem to get every day. Again, every life is precious, but our men and women in uniform are doing an incredible job with unbelievably low fatalities.

[Thanos]

Can't beleive you are that dense.

[Dumbsheet]

Can't beleive you are that dense.

Wow, you really shhot down my arguement. I mean, I know I listed tons of facts and statsitics and stuff, but you, I mean you posted a one liner. You can't beat a one liner like that. Think I'll just go bury my head in the sand because you obviously owned my butt.

~Clap, Clap~

[Spaceman Spiff]

Great, just what the tailgate needs. Another Bush/War thread.

[jpillian]

Interesting statistics. They would have greater validity if we knew the source for the statistics.

Also, quite frankly, the stats of true interest would probably be the casualty statistics -- from what I've heard, I think there are about 10 soldiers wounded for every 1 soldier killed in combat.

On the other hand, I will say that I did know of and witness a certain (small) number of training fatalities, and a larger number of off-duty fatalities. Purely tongue in cheek -- sometimes it did seem that young soldiers would be safer in a combat zone then at home, left to their own devices.

Still, I'd really like to see a source for the stats before I confer any sort of validity to them.

[Dumbsheet]

Forgot to say that these statistics were published by the Congressional Research Service and may be viewed at:

_http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf_

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

[Thanos]

Wow, you really shhot down my arguement. I mean, I know I listed tons of facts and statsitics and stuff, but you, I mean you posted a one liner. You can't beat a one liner like that. Think I'll just go bury my head in the sand because you obviously owned my butt.

~Clap, Clap~

Casualtiy is killed /injuried during conflict.I think those are totals to inlcude suicide, accidents and death while on active duty.

[Dumbsheet]

Casualtiy is killed /injuried during conflict.I think those are totals to inlcude suicide, accidents and death while on active duty.

Yeah like I said, casuailtes.

[jpillian]

Forgot to say that these statistics were published by the Congressional Research Service and may be viewed at:

_http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf_

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

Wow -- good find.

Table 6 on Page 12 (Table 6. Comparison of Death, Wounded and Amputation

Statistics in American Conflicts) was interesting.

So far (Nov 06) for OIF, there have been 3000 deaths, 23,417 wounded, and 472 amputations. For OEF, there have been 352 deaths, 1,110 wounded, and 37 amputations.

My impression was that there was a LOT more amuptations occurring than 500 across both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tough to contest the source of the numbers though. Very enlightening

[pez]

I do notice that when clinton was in office deaths went down, and when bush went into office, deaths went up....

Not taking either side, just going by the numbers...

[APBT]

Someone sent me this...

Our men and women serving in the Mideast have done more with fewer casualties than any military in history.. You will be surprised. Why has the media not complained before the Iraq war? These are some rather eye-opening facts. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:

1980 .......... 2,392

1981 .......... 2,380

1982 .......... 2,318

1983 .......... 2,465

1984 .......... 1,999

1985 .......... 2,252

1986 .......... 1,984

1987 .......... 1,983

1988 .......... 1,819

1989 .......... 1,636

1990 .......... 1,508

1991 .......... 1,787

1992 .......... 1,293

1993 .......... 1,213

1994 .......... 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 .......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 .......... 826

1999 .......... 795

2000 .......... 774

2001 .......... 890

2002 .......... 1007

2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*

2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*

2005 .......... 919*

2006 .......... 920*

* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr Clinton's presidency? Were we at war? Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? Especially look at 1980 during President Jimmy Carter's (Nobel Peace Prize winner) term -- there were 2,392 US military fatalities. Some of the heaviest deaths occurred during Ronald Reagan's two terms without a major conflict taking place (biggest loss was the Beirut bombing). What this clearly indicates is that our media and some politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts that support their agenda-driven reporting. Another fact our media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.

Wrong again - The latest demographics show the following:

European descent (white) ..... 69.12%

Hispanic .... 12.5%

African American ..... 12.3%

Asian ..... 3.7%

Native American ..... 1.0%

Other ..... 2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European descent (white) ..... 74.31%

Hispanic ..... 10.74%

African American ..... 9.67%

Asian ..... 1.81%

Native American ... .. 1.09%

Other ..... 2.33%

I sure wish we could get a TRUE picture in the media rather than the slant we seem to get every day. Again, every life is precious, but our men and women in uniform are doing an incredible job with unbelievably low fatalities.

Good find!!! I did not know that and am sure many people around the didn't either.

[jpillian]

I do notice that when clinton was in office deaths went down, and when bush went into office, deaths went up....

Not taking either side, just going by the numbers...

I'm sure the explanation would have something to do with the end of the Cold War, draw down of troops, peace dividend ... yadda yadda.

I think the comparison between Presidents is kind of lame.

What is more telling, I believe is the comparison between conflicts. OIF keeps getting compared to Vietnam, but has nowhere NEAR the casualty or fatality rate.

At the time these stats were taken, OIF had claimed approx. 3000 lives (Mar '03 - Nov '06). Vietnam claimed approx 47,000 lives (arguable timeline, but something like from 1964-1973).

Puts things into perspective.

(Given -- if you don't believe OIF is a just cause for the sacrifice of American lives, anything > 0 is too many)

[Larry]

Wow. Somebody pointing out statistical evidence that Bill Clinton's apples were worse than George Bush's oranges.

News.

[Burgold]

One of the things that ought to be pointed out here is that the DOD has been constantly downwardly revising the numbers. In the first year of OIF, the DOD listed 16,000 wounded. Do you think that sice that point we've had 2,000 more deaths, but only 7,000 more injuries? I also read an article once that they redefined wounded as a member of the US military not able to report to duty for more than 24 hours due to sustained injuries. Subsequently, I have been in Walter Reed when a cavlacade of hundreds of non wounded who had each been surgery multiple times were being wheeled down so they could "report for duty" There was even a Washington Post report covering this phenomenon a last year.

Here's an article that talks a little bit about one example.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7165869

New Pentagon Numbers Raise Health Care Worries

by Joseph Shapiro

All Things Considered, February 4, 2007 · Last month, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes presented a paper at a meeting of social scientists about the cost of treating injured soldiers. She reported that 50,000 American troops had been wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A few days later she got a call from a senior Pentagon official.

"The assistant secretary for Health of the DOD phoned me up asked me where I had found the numbers, and I faxed him his own Web site and that was the last I heard from them," Bilmes says.

Now both the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs have changed the number of wounded on their Web sites.

The Pentagon says the more accurate number is 23,000, and that this lower number simply makes a distinction between injuries of combat and other health problems, like the stomach flu.

Bilmes says that using the bigger number gives a more realistic picture of the health care that's going to be needed.

"Regardless of the official number the Pentagon wants to put out — whether they want to count nonhostile injuries or they don't — either way, the VA is not going to be prepared," Bilmes says.

[Funkyalligator]

Well I a very obvious difference when trying to compare the two sets of stats is that the training and other fatalities aren't included during the past 4 years when in the past they had....note the astrix....hmmm....guess people need to edit facts in order to prove their "distorted" view of the world.

[alexey]

Tables 5 and 6 in the reference link have data different from that you posted...

Other than the number of accidental deaths the numbers there do not seem very surprising. 1 Hostile Action death between 1992 and 2000. 2596 Hostile Action deaths between 2001 and 2006 (with 238 "pending" in 2006).

[Baculus]

Well, I don't think this table is very accurate, considering that some of the figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only. That will skew the numbers a bit, wouldn't you think?

I just think that this data is further missing some data - for example, I wonder if this includes casualties from national guard troops that are deployed as well in non-conflict regions?

[chomerics]

Here is the jist of it. . .

hostile action deaths under Bill Clinton . . . one

Hostile action deaths under George Bush - 3000+

Notice the footnote in the original post? *these numbers are only for OIF & OEF, in other words, the do not list the deaths for 2 years other than OIF and OEF :doh:

Here let me surmise this entire thread for you. . . Lets take a statistic, and see how we can manipulate it to make it look like Clinton had more military people die on his watch. We don't care that we know it is 100% false, and a boldface lie, because the majority of people won't bother to look up the statistic. All we have to do is put a footnote, leave out a few years of adding numbers up, and fudge things here and there, and tadaa there it is, more people died under Clinton that Bush :doh:

I can't believe people actually fall for this type of stuff, because it is soooooo transparent, and blatantly false. . . but there are people who actually believe this crap simply because they want to believe it. It makes it easier on their own inability to admit fault, and it is where the ego uses defense mechanisms to cushion the fall of the Id. These people will never look at the facts, because deep down they know that everything is BS, but they don't have the balls to admit it to themselves.

[Thiebear]

1990 1million Army

2007 1million Military ?

[Predicto]

Dumbsheet, looks like you got played for a sucker by a grossly misleading unsolicited email.

You can be in favor of what we are doing in Iraq without needing to rely on nonsense like this.

[JMS]

I do notice that when clinton was in office deaths went down, and when bush went into office, deaths went up....

Not taking either side, just going by the numbers...

I think that might be because Reagan vastly increased military spending and the size of the military. It makes sense that more people, more training, means more casualties. Bush One downsized the military in 3 of his four years in office. I believe he had two 10% cuts as the soviet union collapsed. So the size of the military Clinton Inherited was smaller.

Let's see, Reagan did Berute and Granada. Bush did Desert Storm, Desert Sheild, Panama and Somalia. Clinton inherited somalia from Bush but backed away from it rather than allowing it to escalate.

[Dumbsheet]

Dumbsheet, looks like you got played for a sucker by a grossly misleading unsolicited email.

You can be in favor of what we are doing in Iraq without needing to rely on nonsense like this.

Naw naw naw.

I meant someone sent me the CRS links. I looked at the data and made the analysis. I wrote that, I I I.

Now, I ddin't inclcude casualties outside of OIF and OEF for the last two years because I didn't find no data on that, but all was included up through 2004.

Its not that misleading, I think it speaks volumes.

[pez]

I think that might be because Reagan vastly increased military spending and the size of the military. It makes sense that more people, more training, means more casualties. Bush One downsized the military in 3 of his four years in office. I believe he had two 10% cuts as the soviet union collapsed. So the size of the military Clinton Inherited was smaller.

Let's see, Reagan did Berute and Granada. Bush did Desert Storm, Desert Sheild, Panama and Somalia. Clinton inherited somalia from Bush but backed away from it rather than allowing it to escalate.

I think he had a couple of minor military involvements. Desert Fox is one I know for sure, and the other was something like allied force or something... It was a cooperation with NATO.

[jpillian]

Dumbsheet, looks like you got played for a sucker by a grossly misleading unsolicited email.

You can be in favor of what we are doing in Iraq without needing to rely on nonsense like this.

The statistics are accurate (check the link he posted). The Bush-Clinton conclusion might be hokey, but the statistics seem to be from a reputable source. :whoknows:

[alexey]

Its not that misleading, I think it speaks volumes.

What does it say?