[MakoMatt]

Actually, I don't know if this is true or not, maybe just one of those internet bologna things. Can anyone verify the figures???

MakoMatt

Subject: Fw: Interesting Facts

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the War on Terrorism, please read the following report.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
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 200 6:

Military Deaths Cumulative Deaths % to Total Administration

1980 .......... 2,392 2,392 6.6% (Carter)
1981 .......... 2,380 4,772 6.5% (Reagan)
1984 .......... 1,999 6,771 5.5% (Reagan)
1988 .......... 1,819 8,590 5.0% (Reagan)
1989 .......... 1,636 10,226 4.5% (George HW)
1990 ......... 1,508 11,734 4.1% (George HW)
1991 ......... 1,787 13,521 4.9% (George HW)
1992 .......... 1,787 15,308 4.9% (George HW)
1993 ......... 1,213 16,521 3.3% ( Clinton )
1994 .......... 1,075 17,596 2.9% ( Clinton )
1995 .......... 2,465 20,061 6.8% ( Clinton )
1996 .......... 2,318 22,379 6.4% ( Clinton )
1997 ............. 817 23,196 2.2% ( Clinton )
1998 ......... 2,252 25,448 6.2% ( Clinton )
1999 .......... 1,984 27,432 5.4% ( Clinton )
2000 ......... 1,983 29,415 5.4% ( Clinton )
2001 ............ 890 30,305 2.4% (George W)
2002 ......... 1,007 31,312 2.8% (George W)
2003 .......... 1,410 32,722 3.9% (George W)
2004 1,887 34,609 5.2% (George W)
2005 ............. 919 35,528 2.5% (George W)
2006.............. 920 36,448 2.5% (George W)

Total: 36,448 100.0%

Reagan Admin: 17.0%
GHW Bush Admin: 18.4%
Clinton Admin: 38.6%
GW Bush Admin: 19.3%

If you are momentarily confused when you look at these figures, you're probably not alone; because the facts tend to contradict what we keep being told by the main stream media and our liberal Democratic brethren. These figures clearly indicate that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East (i.e., Iraq & Afghanistan) are LESS than half the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war! And I was even more bewildered when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities ? more than incurred in any single year of the GW Bush administration!
These figures indicate that many members of our Media, as well as our liberal politicians, will pick and choose the figures they want you to hear. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist or bury 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 anyone at: 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?;' and '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

 

[SORTIE]

too good to be true, has it been Snoped?

 

[jpd]

Not Snoped

But similar.

Urban Legends

 

[Slacker]

eye openning numbers,

looking at 1995 (2465 deaths) and 1996 (2318 deaaths) for example, I wondered how could about there have been about 200 deaths per month?

I may be missing something, but when I look at page 10 and 11 of the document from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

I see 1040 for 1995 and 974 for 1996, big difference - but still surprisingly high.

This post edited by Slacker 04:32 PM 02/29/2008

 

[gverb1219]

MakoMatt wrote:
Actually, I don't know if this is true or not, maybe just one of those internet bologna things. Can anyone verify the figures???

MakoMatt

Subject: Fw: Interesting Facts

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the War on Terrorism, please read the following report.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006

See 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:

Military Deaths Cumulative Deaths % to Total Administration

1980 .......... 2,392 ......2,392 6.6% (Carter)
1981 .......... 2,380 ......4,772 6.5% (Reagan)
1984 .......... 1,999 ......6,771 5.5% (Reagan)
1988 .......... 1,819 ......8,590 5.0% (Reagan)
1989 .......... 1,636 .....10,226 4.5% (George HW)
1990 ......... 1,508 .....11,734 4.1% (George HW)
1991 ......... 1,787 .....13,521 4.9% (George HW)
1992 .......... 1,787 .....15,308 4.9% (George HW)
1993 ......... 1,213 .....16,521 3.3% ( Clinton )
1994 .......... 1,075 .....17,596 2.9% ( Clinton )
1995 .......... 2,465 .....20,061 6.8% ( Clinton )
1996 .......... 2,318 .....22,379 6.4% ( Clinton )
1997 .......... 817 .....23,196 2.2% ( Clinton )
1998 .......... 2,252 .....25,448 6.2% ( Clinton )
1999 .......... 1,984 .....27,432 5.4% ( Clinton )
2000 .......... 1,983 .....29,415 5.4% ( Clinton )
2001 ............ 890 .....30,305 2.4% (George W)
2002 .......... 1,007 .....31,312 2.8% (George W)
2003 .......... 1,410 .....32,722 3.9% (George W)
2004 .......... 1,887 .....34,609 5.2% (George W)
2005 ........... 919 .....35,528 2.5% (George W)
2006............ 920 .....36,448 2.5% (George W)

Total: ....................36,448 100.0%

Reagan Admin: ....17.0%
GHW Bush Admin: ..18.4%
Clinton Admin: ...38.6%
GW Bush Admin: ...19.3%

Hmmmmmmmmmm............those numbers do seem a bit off..........

 

[Scott1280]

Psuedo-snoped

(From the Link Above):

Comments: The claim that there were more U.S. military fatalities during the Bill Clinton administration than there have been to date under George W. Bush is false. Moreover, that erroneous conclusion was based on falsified statistics.

Using the actual figures from the Congressional Research Service report cited above, the total military deaths under each of the two administrations are as follows:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths

Moreover, of the 7,500 fatalities that occurred on Clinton's watch, only 76 were attributable to hostile action; the rest were the result of accidents, homicide, illness, self-inflicted injuries, or unknown causes.

For the record, here are the accurate totals for the past 26 years, including those omitted from the message above:

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213
1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

Note that the erroneous totals in the message were arrived at not only by adding up falsified numbers for each president, but also by specifying incorrect starting and ending dates for their administrations. Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 and left office on January 20, 2001, the same date George W. Bush was inaugurated. In addition, the correct totals comprise only six years of the Bush administration, not seven as claimed.

While it is true that there were 2,392 military fatalities during the final year of the Jimmy Carter administration, what the message fails to share with us -- and there is no clearer indication of its partisan intent -- is a full accounting of military casualties attributable to the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Those are as follows:

Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1988 ) ........ 17,201 deaths

George H. W. Bush (1989 - 1992) .... 6,223 deaths

Racial demographics

The portion of the message covering the racial demographics of military casualties over the past few years is accurate enough to stand. Based on the CRS raw numbers for 2003 to 2007, I calculated the following percentages:

White .................... 75.07%
Hispanic ................ 10.57%
Black ....................... 9.19%
Asian ....................... 1.88%
Native American ...... 1.05%
Other ...................... 2.24%

These figures correspond closely enough to the ethnic composition of the general population (cf. 2000 census) to validate the claim that minorities have not suffered disproportionate military casualties during the specified period of time.

 

[PaddleOn]

Lets cut the crap and tell it like it really is...
Bush sucks and has us deep in HISso called war

The man has put this country in dire straights and we are now shouldered with this so called "presidents" guidance

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?
Answer truthfully!
We are spriraling downward at a very fast pace.
Reminds me of Bush Sr.'s year in office.
That also sucked

Like father like son.

Thanks for voting him in twice

 

[Gaucho]

LMAO....

Hey look at it this way...This is it...it's almost over...or is it??

 

[jpd]

PaddleOn wrote:

Thanks for voting him in twice

You going to be this miserable when McCain wins?

 

[Scott1280]

PaddleOn wrote:
Lets cut the crap and tell it like it really is...
Bush sucks and has us deep in HISso called war

Ummm... Congress voted FOR the war....

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

[edit] Passage

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114[2] (Public Law 107?243), it passed the House on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 PM EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[3] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 AM EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23.[4] It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 81 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 296 133 0 3
Ummm.... so.... ummmm..... how is it just "HIS"?

PaddleOn wrote:

The man has put this country in dire straights and we are now shouldered with this so called "presidents" guidance

The man has kept this country SAFE since the attacks on 9/11. Unlike his predisessor, he actually took action against our enemies.

PaddleOn wrote:

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?
Answer truthfully!
ABSOFRIGGINLUTELY!!

PaddleOn wrote:
We are spriraling downward at a very fast pace.
Reminds me of Bush Sr.'s year in office.
That also sucked

Like father like son.
His "Year" in office? Glad to see you have a clear perspective on history....

PaddleOn wrote:
Thanks for voting him in twice

You're welcome!

 

[Gilgoretrout]

Presidents often ride the horse in the direction that it is going and this will define their legacy. This means that they have to work with the situation that is around them

I believe that Bill Clinton?s economic success was based on the building of the internet infrastructure. Think about the amount of Microsoft products that became part of people?s home during his administration. The dot com boom did deflate but how many of you would be looking at this web site before Clinton was president. I do not believe that he had much to do with this but cheep fuel and the explosion of the internet certainly contributed to the economic boom during his administration. Low interest rates and the refinancing boom also helped. The Clinton admiration rode a wave of prosperity that he had little to do with.

The explosion of the internet has cause the earth to become flat. This means that third world countries can now share in the information revolution and its economic prosperity. That means that countries like India can prosper because jobs can be done for less money by people that are happy to work for less money. That is competition and it is good.

George Bush certainly is not the smartest man in the room but you can not blame all of the economic woes on him. Until we get China, India, Indonesia having collective bargaining and union activity we are going to take it on the chin. Bush took a big risk in Iraq. It was not so much about weapons of mass destruction as creating a democratic society that would have the other countries fall in line. Lead by example. The mid east situation is very economic. The bottom line is that the Desert storm situation made these people realize that they are practically in the Stone Age and they are pissed. Human nature dictates that people will do what is best for their situation. So if the Muslim merchant is better off than he was four years ago they will buy into the plan. Until we have Baghdad Disney we will be taking on the chin.

The future economic prosperity of this country will be based more on the ability to have an access ?affordably? energy than what personality is president. Affordably energy and affordable labor... The immigration policy of the next five years will shape this country for the next one hundred years.

We are a tremendously rich country with many more resources than most. We are still the greatest country in the world, warts and all.

God bless America.

I do not want to hijack this thread but the point I am trying to make which I think is the intent of this thread is to keep things in perspective. Any solider, or American or human that dies during a conflict is truly tragic. I caught Letter?s fromLetters from Iwo Jima,the Movie, a couple of weeks ago. Wow, good movie. That puts things in perspective.


This post edited by Gilgoretrout 10:18 AM 03/01/2008

 

[edvac]

the people closest to the problem will take care of it first... sometimes you need drastic measures when clashing religions are living together . we will have the same problem soon. Iran

 

[gverb1219]

edvac wrote:
the people closest to the problem will take care of it first... sometimes you need drastic measures when clashing religions are living together . we will have the same problem soon. Iran

.......dammit Ed, I understood you that time.............

 

[Flukinicehole]

There were over 200,000 allied troops lost in the battle of Normandy. So it looks to me like GW is doing a pretty good job

. Also yes I`m actually much better of today then 8 years ago

. Maybe the economy isnt but I am

.

 

[Slacker]

Gilgoretrout wrote:

I believe that Bill Clinton?s economic success was based on the building of the internet infrastructure. Think about the amount of Microsoft products that became part of people?s home during his administration. The dot com boom did deflate but how many of you would be looking at this web site before Clinton was president. I do not believe that he had much to do with this but cheep fuel and the explosion of the internet certainly contributed to the economic boom during his administration. Low interest rates and the refinancing boom also helped. The Clinton admiration rode a wave of prosperity that he had little to do with.

Thanks for a well thought out post. I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but it was not totaly out of luck that his admin benefitted from the internet boom. I know its become somewhat of a joke, but Al Gore actually was involved in pushing for development of what was then called the Information Superhighway.

[High Perf computing and comm act of 1991

Regarding the original topic of this thread and the number of military deaths per year and per president, its another example of how numbers and statistics can be twisted and used for propaganda purposes to make a point. However, in this case they even got the numbers wrong. Any comparison of military deaths between past and present that doesn't mention the dramatic improvements in battlefield medicine and equipment is flawed. They want you to think, "This war isn't that bad, not as many killed compared to other wars" and then give the stats to prove it. They fail to mention the many thousands who previously would not have survived but have been left as amputees or permanently brain injured.

This post edited by Slacker 01:08 PM 03/02/2008

 

[PaddleOn]

I've read some truly stupid things over the years but...
yeah!
This is one of them

Flukinicehole wrote:
There were over 200,000 allied troops lost in the battle of Normandy. So it looks to me like GW is doing a pretty good job

. Also yes I`m actually much better of today then 8 years ago

. Maybe the economy isnt but I am

.

 

[PaddleOn]

Just read this post and you write really well

I'll admit I'm a pissed off American right now because I'm friggin starting to struggle with the bills and the amount of $ going out to keep my family afloat.Milk and bread...staples of life...costing $8 bucks just for that!
I'm pissed!And money is getting really tight right about now damnit!
Plain and simple I'm one mad as **** son of a gun

Gas in my vehicle today...$60 bucks to fill the **** thing up!
And I'll do that again before the week is over

So yeah...I'm blowin steam and sure as **** blaming Bush!
He doesn't even know what a barrel of oil goes for ???But were fighting the "war" on terror really well

Wrong country but we are really doing great

7 years and no Bin Ladden?
Nice job boys

So go ahead and highlight my words if it makes you feel superior and right.I'm just a working blue collar guy who is trying his best to survive.
Bottom line is more feel like I do than not and this country is not doing good right about now.
But for you folks doing better more power to you.

Not many are doing 8 years down the line...

I've no answers!
Dislike Clinton and Obama...
My choice is McCain at this point.
Same old same old...

=uote=Gilgoretrout]Presidents often ride the horse in the direction that it is going and this will define their legacy. This means that they have to work with the situation that is around them

I believe that Bill Clinton?s economic success was based on the building of the internet infrastructure. Think about the amount of Microsoft products that became part of people?s home during his administration. The dot com boom did deflate but how many of you would be looking at this web site before Clinton was president. I do not believe that he had much to do with this but cheep fuel and the explosion of the internet certainly contributed to the economic boom during his administration. Low interest rates and the refinancing boom also helped. The Clinton admiration rode a wave of prosperity that he had little to do with.

The explosion of the internet has cause the earth to become flat. This means that third world countries can now share in the information revolution and its economic prosperity. That means that countries like India can prosper because jobs can be done for less money by people that are happy to work for less money. That is competition and it is good.

George Bush certainly is not the smartest man in the room but you can not blame all of the economic woes on him. Until we get China, India, Indonesia having collective bargaining and union activity we are going to take it on the chin. Bush took a big risk in Iraq. It was not so much about weapons of mass destruction as creating a democratic society that would have the other countries fall in line. Lead by example. The mid east situation is very economic. The bottom line is that the Desert storm situation made these people realize that they are practically in the Stone Age and they are pissed. Human nature dictates that people will do what is best for their situation. So if the Muslim merchant is better off than he was four years ago they will buy into the plan. Until we have Baghdad Disney we will be taking on the chin.

The future economic prosperity of this country will be based more on the ability to have an access ?affordably? energy than what personality is president. Affordably energy and affordable labor... The immigration policy of the next five years will shape this country for the next one hundred years.

We are a tremendously rich country with many more resources than most. We are still the greatest country in the world, warts and all.

God bless America.

I do not want to hijack this thread but the point I am trying to make which I think is the intent of this thread is to keep things in perspective. Any solider, or American or human that dies during a conflict is truly tragic. I caught Letter?s fromLetters from Iwo Jima,the Movie, a couple of weeks ago. Wow, good movie. That puts things in perspective.
[/quote]

 

[Flukinicehole]

PaddleOn wrote:
I've read some truly stupid things over the years but...
yeah!
This is one of them

Flukinicehole wrote:
There were over 200,000 allied troops lost in the battle of Normandy. So it looks to me like GW is doing a pretty good job

. Also yes I`m actually much better of today then 8 years ago

. Maybe the economy isnt but I am

.

 

[PaddleOn]

My Mom lost 2 brothers( uncles I never will know) at Normandy...
I know its history very well and get offended if it's compared to this "war"

So take your silly smiley faces and stick em where the sun don't shine!

This post edited by PaddleOn 10:28 PM 03/02/2008

 

[SORTIE]

Noreast cabin fever

Jay, have you received OldMud's 'angry man' e-mail? it's relevant to your diatribe...there are many who feel as you do

Fortunately it's been a warm winter and spring should bring on an onslaught of pests...perhaps you should raise prices to reflect your higher operating costs