Some facts you wont' find on CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC. I thank God that these news organizations and the mass media as a whole were not in action during our civil war.



Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.


Military losses, 1980 through 2006 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)
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 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 ......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ........... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........ 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ........... 919 (George W Year)
2006............. 920 (George W Year)
2007..............899 (George W Year)


Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But 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? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the 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%
Just received this the other day. Confirmed the numbers with my former joints chief of staff friend to see if accurate. He said yes.

For sure, every life is precious. I salute every GI in uniform and who has given the ultimate sacrifice. Personally, unlike Bill Clinton, I do not believe that the GI's either in the Korean War or Viet Nam died in vain. But that's my opinion and if you wish to debate please let me know.


"I was surprised again until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(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)

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.


Military losses, 1980 through 2006 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)
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 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 ......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ........... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........ 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ........... 919 (George W Year)
2006............. 920 (George W Year)
2007..............899 (George W Year)


Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But 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? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the 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%

I was surprised again until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(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)

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.


Military losses, 1980 through 2006 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)
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 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 ......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ........... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........ 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ........... 919 (George W Year)
2006............. 920 (George W Year)
2007..............899 (George W Year)


Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But 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? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the 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%

I was surprised again until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(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)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gus,

Gus:

Your use of the word "proof" makes me laugh. Want proof that what you posted is full of ****? Click Here

quote:

I was surprised again until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

Hilarious!

And this is what I get when I click your link.

quote:

File Not Found

The page you have attempted to reach has moved or no longer exists. Please use our navigation to find the page, use our site map below, or visit our homepage by clicking here.

Even more hilarious!

Fan, you jumped the gun and rendered criticism in a very quick manner before digging into the facts. Please look at the following data contained on this website.

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

If need assistance in locating this document please let me know.

the website you are referring calls the statistics "shaky" but not untrue. I'm sure they could be tweaked a bit by any one side but the fact remains according to this research sevice:

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html

Maybe you are right and we should contact the Congressional Research Service to verify such data????

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
Fan, you jumped the gun and rendered criticism in a very quick manner before digging into the facts.

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

If need assistance in locating this document please let me know. Took me about 1 minute.

Took me 10 seconds for this.

Snopes and war dead

Ronkas, have you or your friends at Snopes forgotten that the US and the civilized world as a whole is at war on 2 fronts during 07/08 when slick Willy was running for the hills during his presidency? That this fact may justify a "slightly" higher casualty rate in our armed services?? The US had to pick up the pieces of 9/11 or have you forgotten that tragic event?

Personally, I think our military has done one helluva job in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not a perfect world out there. Interesting that the Federal Govt of Iraq is taking on Al Sadr. Maybe Federalism is finally taking hold in Iraq and the people start thinking as Iraqis instead of Shia, Sunni, or Christians.

A quote from my 2 Star Friend:

"The peacetime losses reflect training and operations, which are affected by budgetary constraints. I do not know of any definitive studies that link the defense budget cuts made by various administrations to the fatalities suffered during the reduced budget periods. (The relevant cuts would be in Operations and Maintenance, O&M, not procurement; you get the point.)".

This may explain the increase of fatalities in a peactime posture. Maybe not.

I know you are very intelligent. Throw politics aside and wrestle with the facts.

Luv ya, Good night.

Love ya too Gus. That's why I don't want you to throw around falsehoods.

Why did the sham analysis not include several years of Reagan? For that matter, if we are talking about budget cuts vs. expansion as the 2 star explanation, it stands to reason that Reagan would have virtually no deaths because the defense budget grew exponentially, and 1976 - 1979 casualties would be high, since the military budget was slashed.

See, politics have nothing to do with it. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. One last one for your officer to answer. Why is the rate of suicide so much higher in the military now as opposed to the previous administrations?

Can't we all just love one another?

Reagan was Commander in Chief for eight years (from January 1981 till January 1989), and the following five years of his Presidency are not listed in what began this discussion:

1982
1983

1985
1986
1987

Why is more than half of the Reagan era missing?

CrescentRonkas, please refer to page 11 of 29. The data is there.

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
CrescentRonkas, please refer to page 11 of 29. The data is there.

Thus, you have the essence of political discourse in this country. FOX style. Quote a false email. Make it a news headline. Bang it home. Repeatedly. Then say that the facts are in there if you want to find out.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
Can't we all just love one another?

Ronkas, what's so false about it? The link is there. I refer to the page. Check it out, very simple!

Quite frankly, I used to like that web site Snopes. Now however, one may question IT"S authenticity and accuracy.

If you choose to ignore the data that's your perogative.

I'm not sure what's more dangerous now. Living in the Green Zone or walking the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York, statistically speaking.

The link you provide takes us to a pdf document.

At the top of the pdf, a link is provided to the Army Times. This is that link.

When I go to that link, I find an article that backs up the Snopes clarification. As a matter of fact, I'd bet Snopes used the Army Times article to verify the facts.

Here is the pertinent part of that article: ( I put an *** to point out which page of the pdf has the accurate figures.)


E-mail on military deaths is shaky on facts

By Chuck Vinch - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Mar 27, 2008 7:50:12 EDT

A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of cyberspace.

The e-mail, entitled, “Some very interesting statistics: Military losses, 1980 through 2006,” states that more U.S. service members died on active duty during the eight years of the Clinton administration, when there were no major U.S. military conflicts, than in the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, during which the military was fighting two large-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The e-mail offers year-by-year U.S. military death totals from all causes — operations, illness, accidents, suicides, etc. — from 1980 through 2006.

The data supposedly were taken from a periodically updated Congressional Research Service report on the subject, which in turn is based on statistics compiled by the Pentagon’s Defense Manpower and Data Center.

There’s just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly from the figures published in the cited CRS source document.

According to the e-mail, slightly more than 14,000 U.S. active-duty military deaths occurred from 1993 to 2000 during the eight years of the Clinton administration, compared to 7,932 deaths from 2001 through 2006 under President Bush.

“The loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when America wasn't even involved in a war,” states the e-mail, whose original author is, of course, forever lost to the electrons.

But some simple math using the figures listed on *****page 7***** of the CRS report reveals that the figures for several of the years under Clinton are inflated, while figures for some of the years under Bush are downplayed.

In reality, according to the CRS report, 7,500 service members died on active duty in the eight years from 1993 through 2000, compared to 8,792 in the six years from 2001 through 2006.

The Pentagon has not yet released data on total active-duty deaths for 2007, but 1,014 service members died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that year, and more than 100 have died in the wars so far in 2008, pushing the known total under Bush to more than 9,900.

The report does not address the ratio of active-duty deaths to force size; the active-duty force shrank significantly during the drawdown of the 1990s, from more than 1.7 million in 1993 to about 1.3 million by the early years of this decade.

The claims of this particular e-mail are easily disproved. But the online proliferation of such anonymous documents highlights a serious concern for researchers and scholars about how to separate fact from fiction within the vast quantities of raw material online — and being consumed by users who often have no easy way to gauge the reliability of the information they see.



So Gus, It looks like someone sent you an e-mail claiming the inaccurate facts and then linked the accurate report to you. If you examine the accurate report from CRS, you will see that the numbers you listed (I'm guessing they were from the e-mail) were not the same as the numbers in the report. There have been significantly more deaths during George W's years....

But Amy, we are at war dammit! You must really hate the troops. So disrespectful. Tsk. Tsk.

And there are still those pesky Reagan years when we liberated Grenada from the med students. If you look at the charts, we built up the troop levels significantly and vastly increased spending. Couldn't get that death rate down though. But as a percentage of spending and troop level, the death rate is lower.

Gosh, I hate statistics.

Now now Ron, switch to de-caf like someone else already prescribed! I've sent your and Amy's comments to the Pentagon for a rebuttal to their lies. I'll be back to you one way or another and you might be right!

In the meantime, enjoy this article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/americas_three_worst_president.html

Getting back to the CRS report, I found Table 5 on p. CRS-8 quite interesting. It has a breakdown of active-duty deaths by cause. I wouldn't have guessed that there would be so many homicides and suicides each year.

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
Now now Ron, switch to de-caf like someone else already prescribed! I've sent your and Amy's comments to the Pentagon for a rebuttal to their lies. I'll be back to you one way or another and you might be right!

In the meantime, enjoy this article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/americas_three_worst_president.html

Oh, great. More cherry picking with Jimmy Carter. At least we can add a Republican to that list now.

Interesting you brought that up Paul: lost my best friend in the Navy to a homicide. Guy got 5 years in the brig I think for killing him in a bar room brawl. What a legal system we have.

quote:

Some facts you wont' find on CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC. I thank God that these news organizations and the mass media as a whole were not in action during our civil war.

Perhaps these "facts" don't appear in "CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC" because they are not "facts" at all. The numbers posted in the opening post of this thread listing military deaths during the "Clinton years" are, for the most part, fabricated.

At least based on
Table 5, Page 12 in the PDF link provided.

Queerly, the years 1993, 1994 and 1997 match perfectly but all of the other numbers for the "Clinton years" do not in any way, shape or form equal the values in "Table 5" on Page 12.

See for yourself. If you have any sense of honesty, you will compare the numbers in "Table 5" to the made-up numbers posted here.

Perhaps this is why this didn't appear in any legitimate media outlet?

"If your mother says she loves you? Check it out."

Trust, but verify.

P.S. Here's a link to another fellow getting embarrassed by posting this same bullcrap.