U.S. military deaths below 26-year average

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by dread, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43
    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62294


    WASHINGTON – Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, a WND investigation has revealed.

    Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study – when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace.

    In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.



    http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf




    I am still waiting for people to verbally bitch slap Jimmy Carter around for all the deaths HE caused!

    "Jimmy cried and people died!"
     
  2. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    But Jimmy was such a great President, why would anyone want to slap him?:rolleyes: People need to realize that Carter was easily the worst president in American history and possibly the worst leader of in the history of the english speaking peoples.
     
  3. nibor
    Offline

    nibor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    746
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Upper upper NYS
    Ratings:
    +13
    A whale we sho needed that knuckle dragging peanut farmer to destroy awll that whole filthy steel industry fo sho...................but I notice he isn't paying his pentence with Habitat fo Humanity anymo..............who the hell let im out???????????:rolleyes: :eusa_whistle:


    I remember the bastard tellin us "we must awll tighten our belts"...................ARE THEY FREAKIN' TIGHT ENOUGH YET DIPSTICK???????:eusa_drool: :rolleyes: :eusa_wall:
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Not hard to have accidents when your leftovers from Vietnam weapons and equipment are held together with duct tape and bailing wire. We had to go out in town and purchase our own rifle cleaning gear in 1980. The budget didn't include such "nonessential" items as patches, Que-tips, pipecleaners and brushes.

    My pay at the time totalled a $200. paycheck on the 15th, and a $199. paycheck on the 30th. No allotments.

    It were fun.:eusa_eh:
     
  5. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Now it's Habitat for Hamas.
     
  6. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    Near the end of "The Great Escape", an American officer asked his German captors, "How many were wounded?" That's a valid question here. One that goes unanswered.

    But let's examine the underlying data, the actual statistics compiled by the Department of Defense, and see if there's a trend.

    Looking in the column "Total Deaths" we see a steady decline from 2,392 in 1980 to a low of 758 in 2000, and a steady increase every year after (2006 being incomplete, as noted on the table).

    Plugging the fatality numbers into Excel shows an average drop of 82 fatalities a year from 1981 through 2000, and an average increase of 237 per year from 2001 through 2005. Comparing the 758 deaths in 2000 to the 1,941 deaths in 2005 shows an increase of 256%.

    The trend establishes a steady improvement that Bush erased, and then reversed. The original post faults Carter for lacking the professional military and the improved equipment that saved so many lives, while ignoring Bush's decision to launch an avoidable war that cost 4,000 lives without making us any safer.

    It's easy to minimize the sacrifices of our soldiers by counting only fatalities, and averaging the data out over a period long enough to smooth out a discrepancy. I'm not sure why the right-wing thinks it good politics to pretend the costs of this war are of little consequence.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    I don't know why the left thinks it is ok to pretend the death rate in this war is earth shattering and a good reason to abandon an entire country to anarchy and enslavement.
     
  8. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,706
    Thanks Received:
    6,607
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,039

    It is anarchy and enslavement NOW for many there, who have not left for refuge camps already?

    The death rate in this war should not be dimished just because it wasn't on the level of the disasterous Viet Nam.... or any of the World wars for certain.

    It is objectionable because this was a WAR OF CHOICE, not a war of imminent danger and not a war that is to defend our country from any immediate harm from an enemy and because it was a deflection from 9/11 and going after the bad guys that did this too us with all our force, might, and intelligence....we got sidetracked...with money and forces and intelligence personell that we could have used to snuff the 9/11 perps once and for all...or go after them with a vengence imho.

    And I don't think anyone should compare a soldier that dies by accident with a soldier that dies in a war that he went to, to supposedly defend us...the soldier did this with grace and honor and with a sense of duty to his country.... an accident is just that, an accidental death.

    still sad, but NOT the same imo.

    care
     
  9. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    So, you're opinion is that we should wait until something happens to us and then respond? Why is that? What is wrong with taking some premptive action to prevent the death of citizens?
     
  10. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43


    :rofl:
     

Share This Page