Thanks for proving my point Gtech, you had to find a way to make it work even though it does not. It states 'during' not via but 'DURING' the war on terror. According to your logic then, those training for the war do not count? Those who signed up and died before they got there do not count? Even if you could logically conclude this, of which you can not, only those grasping to believe you will, even if you did then it goes to show it's meaningless as it's comparing nothing remotely similiar and simply trying to be inaccurate to fool people into thinking it's something it is not. Keep making that shit smell good instead of simply stating that it's misleading as most from what I read, even those on your side admitted
You added the word Only. Therefore you are trying to change what he said when presenting facts by making it seem like he was trivializing the deaths of American troops. More DID die under previous administrations because we have ALWAYS had troops in harm's way, however we were not at war, and during war standards become less lax, funding in increased, additional military hardware and precautions are gained. Peacetime military with a standing army is more prone to having accidents and deaths because standards start to become lacking, things get funding cuts, people don't care as much, more drinking on the job, less checking over things, not following protocols, in essence the military gets lazy and bored - and like any group of lazy and bored 20-30 year olds they go out and do stupid sh*t for entertainment. Ever seen a group of bored 20-30 year olds (or did you never leave the house). They do stupid sh*t all the time. "hey, lets go jump off that and see what happens" "I have nothing better to do... k" But the moment we engage in conflict and the basic military hackle is raised, along with funding and stricter protocols, there are less deaths, and less goofing off, less laziness, more adherence to standards and practices, and more efficiency. Under Clinton we had the 90's generation in the army, the folks who grew up in the 80's and late 70's. Now we have my generation, the folks who grew up in the 90's and very late 80's. Much of the military was still in highschool when the buildings were blown to bits - and that scarred many of them. You won't find much dicking around as you would from the Clinton Era folk. The Carter Era were... well... the Carter era. We had alot going on all over the world then, and as is to be expected the death toll would be higher with a ton more going on. Gtech, what's the figures for the Reagan Admin, and the Bush Admin? I'd like to see where they match to todays. Because Bush I only had a 4 year term he'd only be able to have a 4 year average from the others to compare to really, so basically his Admin could be compared to the first 4 and last 4 of each two termer. Edit: and seeing that Carter was a 1 term pres, its odd that more deaths happened in his 4 years than in Bush's 7ish years. If you took Bush's first 4 you'd have a lot less deaths than in the Carter 4. Thus it is only fair that either a finished 4 year first term be compared with Carters, or the unfinished second term. As 4 != 8.
Jackuul http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf Page 11 / 12 I believe has from 1980-2006 this pdf also has war stats other figures for deaths, wounded, etc.
That is because he was trivializing their deaths in his unending desire to support his terrorist hero Bush.
Not so AGS, he was indeed not trivializing any deaths. If you could have English as your THIRD language you would see that . But then again you do like to repeat. What were those words again? Oh yes. Miserable Failure. Fake Mayor. Miserable Bush. Miserable this. Miserable that. You make me Miserable by your Miserable use of the word Miserable. Get a thesaurus. Look up Synonyms of Miserable. There are a few. Use them. Spice it up. Then I wont be annoyed by your other topics - because it wont be repetition. Take it from someone who, when he had a few more English braincells, won several essay awards in college English. As for you GRIM. It won't load. It sits there, and like... waits - which either means a lot of people are using it, or this latest FireFox update sucks.
Jackuul, try the link Gtech posted, has the same info for that part from 1980 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf I also don't think he was at least intentionally trivializing them, any time you use the numbers in troop deaths 'on either side' it is easily attacked this way. 'yes this is backing Gtech up btw' ... He sees it one way, different than me, I however don't think Gtech would trivialize any troop death.
Aye. You see what AGS did was either an ingenious trick of projection psychology - or a mistake. By supplanting his own word "Only" in there, he basically projected that Gtech implied something that he never did imply. I am sure by the end of our president tenure we will be on par with deaths from the Clinton Admin - however if the Carter numbers are true... then dayumn. From what I see from even 1980 - it doesn't look pretty (I believe Carter was still in office in 1980, as he did not leave office until 81). At least suicides are down (yours loaded btw) and accidents are down too - but so are the numbers of our standing army.
Jackuul, You make some good points. These are outside of the scope of the argument. At it's simplest, GRIM chose to take issue with one and only one illustration and said it was a blatant lie. I sourced one report that clearly proved this assumption wrong. After further denial, I sourced straight from the DOD web site. Not a scientists site, but the DOD. I've done the math for GRIM to clearly show that the wording in the illustration is correct and is not a lie. Clearly, according to 3rd grade math, more military men and women in TOTAL died under the Clinton administration, than has as a result of fighting in the war on terror. As far as AGS, he spends most of his time calling our soldiers dumb, turkeys and other names of choice, while praising terrorists. I don't believe anyone would actually think that AGS gives a damn about our soldiers. The only thing he defends here, are islamic terrorists and he does so with a vigor like none other. To be clear, no, I am not even remotely attempting to trivialize the deaths of our soldiers. It's a lame accusation. In order to prove the notion in the illustration was not a lie, as suggested by GRIM, I had to disclose the actual numbers. Those numbers conclusively prove that GRIM was wrong. I can understand his hesitation in admitting that. He is strong-willed, like I am. If anyone would like to repurpose the numbers, or add additional qualifiers and conditions to them, feel free. Under the original contesting of the wording in the illustration, I've confirmed this is in fact accurate. Nothing left for me to defend. As such, GRIM can have the last word and AGS can serve as the resident butt-kissing cheerleader
Jackuul raised a good point. Let's take off the last two years of the Clinton presidency, so that we can compare years to years: Under Bush, deaths due to Hostile and WOT (per the illustration): 3 + 55 + 18 + 344 + 739 + 739 + 753 Total: 2651 Total military deaths under the Clinton Administration (per the illustration): 1213 + 1075 + 1040 + 974 + 817 + 827 (796 + 758 - These last two years removed from total) Total: 5946
Yes (I reluctantly admit that I had to go look that word up in the dictionary): A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.
Sigh. Again Gtech it does not state 'as a result of' it states DURING. Yet again with that logic anyone who died during training, those who died because they signed up to fight the war on terror 'but didn't make it to Iraq', their deaths meant nothing and are not included. That however does not matter as it's 'during' not from a result of. This is only accurate if you wish to mislead by not including all deaths btw
Well, as per the issue, Gtech is correct. Out of ALL the military deaths in the Clinton Administration Versus the deaths of the War on Terror. I'd be interested in knowing just to total numbers over everything for both presidents. Accidents, mishaps, suicides, murders, illness, unexplained, and Hostile Action. That would be the number I would want to see - as there is no comparable number Vs. Clinton with Hostile Actions. Then I would like to see the Bush number MINUS the Hostile Action numbers, and compare that to the Clinton numbers - that way it would be a fair comparison in terms of military efficiency.
I'm sure that the deaths were caused by neglect of the miltary by the Clinton and Carter administrations. Didn't Clinton dodge the draft. I don't know what Carter's problem is.
Show me in the quote where it states deaths simply by the war on terror. If you wish to believe it I guess you will, does not make it accurate. It states 'During' which is a time frame, do I trully need to link to the definition of 'during'? It does not state only deaths caused by the war on terror. Yet again even if it did, you are then saying those who died during training do not count, those who died before they made foot onto Iraq soil do not count. Give me a break, nice twists there guys. To bad it doesn't state only on the war on terror, it states 'during'
I could have used another word but Miserable Failure is the most fitting for Dubya Bush. And Americas Fake Mayor will always be Americas Fake Mayor. If I make you so miserable then why not just put me on ignore? I would hate to be responsible for making you miserable.
Bad words for white men holding office. Any bad words for real terrorists? Maybe just one, as a show of good will?
But if I put someone on ignore it would make me intellectually dishonest. Therefore I ignore no posts.