U.S. military deaths below 26-year average

[dread]

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!"

 

[Swamp Fox]

But Jimmy was such a great President, why would anyone want to slap him? 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.

 

[nibor]

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???????????


I remember the bastard tellin us "we must awll tighten our belts"...................ARE THEY FREAKIN' TIGHT ENOUGH YET DIPSTICK???????

 

[Gunny]

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!"

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.

 

[onedomino]

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???????????

Now it's Habitat for Hamas.

 

[Dogger]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[Care4all]

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.

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

 

[Swamp Fox]

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

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?

 

[dread]

Now it's Habitat for Hamas.

 

[Dogger]

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.

On the merits, I'll join with Care4all.

But why are you changing the subject, RGS? The original post was intended to minimize the sacrifice made by troops in Iraq.

People like you and gunny made the military more professional, and that (with better equipment) created the trend toward fewer fatalities. The original post and the article it cites pretends that trend never happened, and that current levels of loss are routine.

Whether Iraq was worth the cost is another debate. We are debating whether the cost is of little consequence, and you have joined with those who suggest that it is. Shame of them, and shame on you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On the merits, I'll join with Care4all.

But why are you changing the subject, RGS? The original post was intended to minimize the sacrifice made by troops in Iraq.

People like you and gunny made the military more professional, and that (with better equipment) created the trend toward fewer fatalities. The original post and the article it cites pretends that trend never happened, and that current levels of loss are routine.

Whether Iraq was worth the cost is another debate. We are debating whether the cost is of little consequence, and you have joined with those who suggest that it is. Shame of them, and shame on you.

People like you that would send the message to our enemies that if they just kill enough Americans and hold on long enough you WILL cut and run are the reason we have the problems we do. Hell your message is if you kill even one of us we will tuck our tails between our legs and run away. Hoping to be left alone a little longer.

 

[dread]

People like you that would send the message to our enemies that if they just kill enough Americans and hold on long enough you WILL cut and run are the reason we have the problems we do. Hell your message is if you kill even one of us we will tuck our tails between our legs and run away. Hoping to be left alone a little longer.

Dogger doesnt REALLY care about Americans....He just likes to shit over others when things dont go the way HE wants them to.

 

[Dogger]

Dogger doesnt REALLY care about Americans....He just likes to shit over others when things dont go the way HE wants them to.

Let's make sure I understand you.

You start a thread that minimized the sacrifice of American troops who died, and ignored the sacrifice of those who suffered horrendous injuries.

And I object to your shameful disregard of those sacrifices because (in your twisted mind) I don't care about Americans?

 

[dread]

Let's make sure I understand you.

You start a thread that minimized the sacrifice of American troops who died, and ignored the sacrifice of those who suffered horrendous injuries.

And I object to your shameful disregard of those sacrifices because (in your twisted mind) I don't care about Americans?

IT DOESN"T MINIMIZE ANYTHING!


It goes to show that people with the argument that Bush is a fuckin killer has had LESS deaths DURING A TIME OF WAR than all the other years of peace.

 

[Dogger]

IT DOESN"T MINIMIZE ANYTHING!

It goes to show that people with the argument that Bush is a fuckin killer has had LESS deaths DURING A TIME OF WAR than all the other years of peace.

The article was misleading, and intended to lower opposition to the war by minimizing the true cost.

In peacetime, fatalities fell steadily over 20 years as the service acquired modernized equipment and a more professional force. Comparing Bush's record to a time when higher loss was routine ignores all of that progress. It tried to make a 256% jump in fatalities seem like business as usual, or even an improvement.

Indeed, the true variance is even worse. Had the trend of 82 fewer deaths per year continued, 2005 would have experienced 348 fatalities, instead of the actual count of 1941. While the 2005 count represents a 256% jump over the 2000 count, it represents a 558% jump over what might have happened if the little murderous warmonger had not stolen the office.

But if you did not understand the article before you posted it, please say so, and I'll withdraw any accusation against you.

 

[dread]

The article was misleading, and intended to lower opposition to the war by minimizing the true cost.

In peacetime, fatalities fell steadily over 20 years as the service acquired modernized equipment and a more professional force. Comparing Bush's record to a time when higher loss was routine ignores all of that progress. It tried to make a 256% jump in fatalities seem like business as usual, or even an improvement.

Indeed, the true variance is even worse. Had the trend of 82 fewer deaths per year continued, 2005 would have experienced 348 fatalities, instead of the actual count of 1941. While the 2005 count represents a 256% jump over the 2000 count, it represents a 558% jump over what might have happened if the little murderous warmonger had not stolen the office.

But if you did not understand the article before you posted it, please say so, and I'll withdraw any accusation against you.

The article WAS not trying to lower opposition to the war. People will believe what they want to believe no matter what is presented to them. It merely shows that not EVERYTHING can be blamed on Bush.

I mean THAT is the argument that the left like to use.


OBVIOUSLY it is YOU who didnt like what he read and therefore didnt WANT to understand the article.

 

[Dogger]

The article WAS not trying to lower opposition to the war. People will believe what they want to believe no matter what is presented to them. It merely shows that not EVERYTHING can be blamed on Bush.

I mean THAT is the argument that the left like to use.

OBVIOUSLY it is YOU who didnt like what he read and therefore didnt WANT to understand the article.

No, I wanted to understand the article better, so I located the original data. Then I understood it perfectly.

When examining data, it's better to look at trends and multiple data points. An article that compares two arbitrary data points with no reference to the trend is almost always trying to hide something. That happened in this article, so I looked further and found the real story.

Why compare 1,941 deaths in 2005 to 2,392 deaths to 1980? Why not the 1,819 deaths in 1988, or the 1,293 deaths in 1992, or the 758 deaths in 2000? As the end of an administration, each is a potential data point, but only the count in 1980 supported the argument that this war has cost fewer lives than peacetime. By ignoring the obvious trend, and looking back far enough, the author used otherwise accurate data to tell you a lie.

Once again, look at the total fatalities column for all years in the table. The trend toward fewer fatalities is unmistakable. Now explain to me a benign purpose for the author's decision to totally ignore that trend.

 

[Care4all]

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?

Absolutely NOT. Pre emptive war, the Bush Doctrine....has NOTHING to do with any kind of imminent danger....WHICH IS NEW policy for the USA....

If we are in imminent danger, we have every "right" to attack someone who is about to attack us....

THIS WAS NOT the case with Saddam Hussein....we were NOT in imminent danger of being attacked by him, PERIOD....this war in Iraq was a ruse.

The reason the USA has had this policy of not sending our men in to war unless it is an imminent danger or situation to us is because as human beings, we do not go out to kill others or have our own men killed, for things that are not a immediate danger to us....this is HUMANE....this was America.

To send our soldiers in to a full fledged war, to die for America, for us at home, without an imminent threat to us at home, is unethical and immoral to enth degree imo.

Pre-emptive war, is war without imminent danger....without working harder for diplomacy, without having any facts of imminent danger to justify killing our own men, sending them to their possible death in war. Unethical and immoral, as I have said....

Care

 

[rayboyusmc]

[BAGHDAD - The killings of three U.S. soldiers in separate attacks in Baghdad pushed the American death toll for April up to 47, making it the deadliest month since September, the military said Wednesday.


One soldier died when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb. The other died of wounds sustained when he was attacked by small-arms fire, the military said. Both incidents occurred Tuesday in northwestern Baghdad.

A third soldier died in a roadside bombing Tuesday night in the east of the capital, the military said.

The statement did not give a more specific location. But the eastern half of Baghdad includes embattled Sadr City and other neighborhoods that have been the focus of intense combat between Shiite militants and U.S.-Iraqi troops for more than a month.
/QUOTE]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq