Military Deaths For Twenty Six Years

[rtparso]

Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS---
Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..

Military losses for 20 years

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the
war on terror in ffice:smarttags" />Iraq and lace w:st="on">Afghanistanlace> , the sacrifice has been
enormous. In the time period from the invasion of lace w:st="on">Iraqlace> in March
2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 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
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 ......... 1,999
1988 ......... 1,819
1989 ......... 1,636
1990 ........ 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .........1,293
----------------------------------------------------
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ..........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 lace w:st="on">Clintonlace> years @13,417 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ........ 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
-------------------------------------------------
2000 .......... 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 ......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 ......... 1,410
2004 ......... 1,887
2005 ........ 919
2006.......... 920
------------------------------------------------------------
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 lace w:st="on">Americalace> 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) Jimmy
Carter, there were 2,392 lace w:st="on">USlace> military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many of our Media & 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?

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to
slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives
in lace w:st="on">Iraqlace> , are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more
media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following
distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ....... 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 ................................... . 33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars
figure...and they sway public opinion! (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)

Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print
statisticslike these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much
as they do?'

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by rtparso

Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print
statisticslike these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

They're invested in their own agenda-driven myths:

1. Minorities are over-represented in the armed forces as a percentage compared to the rest of society (they're not)

2. People join the military only because they have no other options in life (untrue and indicative of a condescending, patronizing attitude toward servicepeople)

3. The average serviceperson in today's military is inferior employment material compared to people in civilian occupations (also untrue--as the military continues to specialize and develop/utilize increasingly advanced technology, the "average" soldier has to be smarter than ever)

As for the second question, you don't really need me to answer, do you?

[rtparso]

I forgot to state that this was someone else's writing that was e-mailed to me. I have briefly checked the source and it seems legitimate and is a gov agency.

[Powerman]

There are many such stories, and the numbers are real. If you look into it you find that the Armed Forces have been reduced from 2 mil in 1980 to 1.4 mil today. Safety and medical care have been greatly improved. While the casualty rate of the M.E. conflicts are incredibly low, there is no doubt as to the cause of death for 4000 service members since 2002. Hostile enemy action. Are you trying to tell me that death by I.E.D. is no different than a training accident down range with the boys?

[SgtWKPII]

These are very interesting statistics...

[AZXD]

Wow, just like anything dealing with numbers, if you view things in the right light things can seem however you wish.

So we have had troop reductions -- skip over that or factor it in

Show me the number of injuries.
Show me how many during the last twenty years have lost limbs, eye sight, hearing etcetera.

Factor this into the equation and resolve the problem.
I think you'll find a little intentional bias has been imparted into the original set of numbers.

[Cannibul]

rtparso,

Please clean up the cut and paste posts. They look like sh!t.

[Powerman]

One thing is good is the the Conflicts we are in now have the lowest wounded to kill ratio of any past conflict. Meaning if wounded, did they die. That is attributed to the incredible field care they receive immediately on the battle field. Those are awesome numbers.

There have also been over 30,000 wounded in combat operations. Unfortunately those number show the inverse of the others. Many more sever wounds and many more limbs lost. The amputee rate is a low 3.3%, however, that is twice the rate of Viet Nam.

Here is actually a really good source of info I found digging if any one is interested. The projected cost of the VA care for soldier. Has a lot of info. I'm not trying to make a statement, it just has a lot of info.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8710

I've just seen this posted other times and it is always shown as if what is happening in Iraq is no different than peace time, and for some reason Clinton killed a lot more soldiers than Bush, yet Clinton never used force. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean other than once again Clinton sucks. 30,000 soldiers have been wounded in combat actions. Nearly half have been so bad they were unable to return to duty. Over 4000 have died. Period. That does not have to mean anything anti war, but don't trivialize it into another Clinton/Bush thing.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Powerman

One thing is good is the the Conflicts we are in now have the lowest wounded to kill ratio of any past conflict. Meaning if wounded, did they die. That is attributed to the incredible field care they receive immediately on the battle field. Those are awesome numbers.

There have also been over 30,000 wounded in combat operations. Unfortunately those number show the inverse of the others. Many more sever wounds and many more limbs lost. The amputee rate is a low 3.3%, however, that is twice the rate of Viet Nam.

Here is actually a really good source of info I found digging if any one is interested. The projected cost of the VA care for soldier. Has a lot of info. I'm not trying to make a statement, it just has a lot of info.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8710

I've just seen this posted other times and it is always shown as if what is happening in Iraq is no different than peace time, and for some reason Clinton killed a lot more soldiers than Bush, yet Clinton never used force. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean other than once again Clinton sucks. 30,000 soldiers have been wounded in combat actions. Nearly half have been so bad they were unable to return to duty. Over 4000 have died. Period. That does not have to mean anything anti war, but don't trivialize it into another Clinton/Bush thing.

A sad truth.
Thanks.

[Cannibul]

I found a page that has a link to a PDF that has these numbers broke down by cause of death for each year. It's an interesting read

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

I wonder how many of the accidents were training related vs happening outside of duty hours?