My mom sent this to me this morning.. I found it quite interesting. I tried researching this at Snopes and other places first, and so far have been able to confirm it's legitimacy by looking at the DOD web site. Thoughts? Interesting stats on Military deaths Below is some very interesting data referencing deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor will you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will encourage you to enlighten folks around you as to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military. Deaths in the Military 1980 .......... 2,392 1981 ......... 2,380 1982 .......... 2,318 1983 .......... 2,465 1984 .......... 1,999 1985 .......... 2,252 1986 ......... 1,984 1987 .......... 1,983 1988 ........ 1,819 1989 .......... 1,636 1990 .......... 1,508 1991 ........ 1,787 1992 .......... 1,293 1993 ......... 1,213 1994 .......... 1,075 1995 .......... 1,040 1996 ............974 1997 .............817 1998 ...........826 1999 .............795 2000 .............774 2001 ...........890 2002 .......... 1,007 2003 ........ 1,410 [534*] 2004 .......... 1,887 [900*] 2005 .......... [919*] 2006 .......... [920*] Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures--especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting. Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong again - The latest census shows the following: European descent (white) ... 69.12% Hispanic .... 12.5% African American ..... 12.3% Asian .... 3.7% Native American .... 1.0% Other ..... 2.6% The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are: European descent (white) ....74.31% Hispanic.....10.74% African American ... 9.67% Asian ..... 1.81% Native American ....1.09% Other .... 2.33% These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Back in the early 80's the democrats controlled Congress and didn't support the troops. 64% of the deaths were from accidents in old vehicles like WW2 surplus jeeps. Another statistic is that a African American man between the age of 20-34 has a 1-234 chance of being killed in Philadelphia adainst a 1-250 chance of being killed in Iraq.
the same can be said for the clinton admin and the current congress, who won't pass a spending bill without a "run with your tail between your legs" clause.
You can not use these numbers fairly on any level. Just a few things that totally destroy this premise #1 Less total overall troops = less troops to die. #2 Safer more modern equipement = less likely hood of dying. #3 Modern medical techniques save many, including many that by medical personals own admission should not have been saved. Previous decades these same soldiers would have died. If anyone is trying to use deaths to an agenda, without using the total story it would be those who are pro Iraq war. These numbers are nothing new, I have read them before, even pro war people on threads picked them apart. I don't have links bookmarked, however do some searches and I'm sure you'll find some. A fancy way of trying to make it look like deaths are down, factor in wounded, brain dead, limbless, paralyzed, percentage based, etc, etc and a true picture of which you do not want to see is clearly portrayed. --- In any event deaths in Iraq, a war we should not have been in, even if it is 1% of overall deaths in the military doesn't make a good argument from any side that it doesn't matter because years passed more died. I honestly fail to see why anyone would attempt to use these numbers to justify anything, especially prowar.
Good points Grim, though I took the statistics to be more of a way of countering those that gleefully count the death toll with pride... I don't think the author was hoping to justify anything.. I think they were trying to put things into a broader perspective.. My dad told me that to him, it seemed more people died in training or other accidents when he was in the service than died in combat.. If not for the Vietnam war, that was likely true, as it is even today, or at any point during peace time. I just found it interesting as a counter to those who again, enjoy counting body bags.. At least that was my impression on it.
In that respect it is a good thing to bring out the facts I just hate when people try to twist numbers, I don't think you were doing that but I think you know what I mean?.. Some have used these numbers to do just that.
Of course.. The things is, those numbers get twisted on both sides... Sometimes leaving out some facts warps a fact entirely.. Again, it happens on both sides... Either way, any number above 1 is not something I want to see.. However, if 1 saves 1 million, though tragic, it's better than 1 million and one dead.
The real American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is bolstered by over 100,000 contractors (including mercenaries) and international forces. I am proud of our troops and veterans, but I don't think that lower military deaths are any kind of validation for the war itself. There are 100,000+ Iraqis dead and millions of refugees. It's a humanitarian nightmare.
You mean during food-for-oil? When they were constantly bombed during the Clinton administration? Or do you mean when Saddam acquired chemical weapons from western allies and used them on his own people? Or do you mean when Saddam was a CIA assassin prior to coming to power in Iraq?
I've pointed these out before. I saw this on Fox the other day. I believe it was a counter of facts to the Associated Press' recent attempt to portray doom and gloom in Iraq, despite the fact that the surge is working and death tolls have reduce drastically (to the dismay of some). It is an interesting look at the facts. Anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-Americans will probably scream bloody murder over them, because it doesn't fit their twisted version of reality. But that's no surprise. There are a lot of "body bag" counters here. Typically the same ones who will blame soldiers for just about anything, then turn around and claim they support them when it's popular. Guerilla, didn't take long to go from numbers to blaming America again, eh? Every thread, in any way
It is interesting. The most logical explanation is that the size of the US military is dramatically smaller in 2007 than it was in the 1980's and 1990's. The military is so small that for the first time in a war the US is using mercenary guards (such as blackwater) and mercenary contractors to supply troops. That was never done. Ever. It would also be interesting to see those figures with total military deaths over the last 3-4 years/not just the deaths associated with Iraq and Afghanistan. Just showing the Iraq/Afganistan numbers is a very misleading way to present the information.