Food for thought

[LubeDude]

Just so some don`t think I am claiming this as my own work, this is a CAP!

Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost a total of 3,140 soldiers. As tragic as the loss of any soldier is, consider this: below is a list of deaths of soldiers while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:
FIGURES ARE CONFIRMED ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITE

1980 2,392

1981 2,380

1982 2,319

1983 2,465

1984 1,999

1985 2,252

1986 1,984

1987 1,983

1988 1,819

1989 1,636

1990 1,507

1991 1,787

1992 1,293

1993 1,213

1994 1,075

1995 1,040

1996 974

1997 817

1998 827

1999 796

2000 758

2001 891

2002 999

2003 1,410 534*

2004 1,887 900*

2005 919*

2006 920*

* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflict in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during King Clinton's presidency? Were we at war?

Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? I was. Especially when I saw that in 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel Peace Prize" himself, there were 2,392 military fatalities of U.S.soldiers.

What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose. The choose NOT to present the facts.

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. The latest census shows the following:

European decent (white) 69.12%

Hispanic 12.5%

African American 12.3%

Asian 3.7%

Native American 1.0%

Other 2.6%


Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European decent (white) 74.31%

Hispanic 10.74%

African American 9.67%

Asian 1.81%

Native American 1.09%

Other 2.33%

Hmmmmmm.......

Please, don't just take my word, see for yourself:

Click here: Iraq Coalition Casualties < http://icasualties.org/oif/ >

Click here: Gateway Pundit: US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/us-lost-more-soldiers-annually-under.html >

Click here: Military Casualty Information < http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/pe...p.htm >

The next time you are subject to left-wing propaganda , you are equipped with the facts. Pass thefacts on...

 

[PW2]

Re: Food for thought

I see where the Iraqi parliament is taking 2 months off, with their work largely unfinished, while Americans lost another 100 soldiers last month alone.

I'm sure those stats with put at ease the families of those killed and maimed in Iraq--It's allright, I guess. It could be worse.

I'm sure that would be my reaction if it were my kid killed!

 

[LubeDude]

Re: Food for thought

I'm sure that would be my reaction if it were my kid killed!

Ya, you and Cindy Sheehan.

If it were my kid, I would be proud as h*ll of him.

This is a war for our very lives, when will you see that this is just not an Irac war? If we show our weakness now, we are done.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Food for thought

Hey Lube dude might be a good idea to check out what you cut and paste, some times what you see on theses sights might just be a bit misleading. Here are the total military deaths, you know the bottom line. Non-hostile deaths can include those caused by accident, illness, homicide, suicide, terrorist attack, or other undetermined causes.



Here is a more accurate site, its not Limbaugh, or Alicia Colon, but it has the total death rate, rather than the combat causality rate , it only goes up too 2004.

Here is where the story you are quoting originated.


<<In a February 20 column in The New York Sun headlined "Heroes and Cowards," Alicia Colon wrote that every American military death in Iraq -- she put the death toll at 3,133>

And of course a day later guess who picked it up but Rush, and of course after the all of the right wings blogs have been busy spewing inaccurate
info ever since.

<<On the February 21 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh repeated Colon's claims, though incorrectly using the term "casualties" -- which, by military definition, covers all who are dead, wounded, or otherwise lost to the organization -- to refer only to the number killed:>>


Military deaths have increased year-over-year since Bush first took office in 2001 -- both in raw terms and as a percentage of the total number serving -- and have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Iraq war. Check out the the table below, the rate of our troop lost per 100,000 serving rose dramatically under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term.



The number 3,133 represents only deaths in Iraq since the start of the war and does not reflect total military fatalities. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, total military deaths during Bush's first term totaled 5,187, compared with 4,302 under Clinton's first term. The Iraq war began in March 2003.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
<<Year
Total serving
Total deaths
Total deaths/ 100K serving*
Hostile deaths/ 100K serving
1993
1,849,537
1,213
65.6
n/a
1994
1,746,482
1,075
61.6
n/a
1995
1,661,928
1,040
62.5
n/a
1996
1,613,675
974
60.4
0.1
1997
1,578,382
817
51.8
n/a
1998
1,538,570
827
53.8
n/a
1999
1,525,942
796
52.2
n/a
2000
1,530,430
758
50.0
n/a
2001
1,552,096
891
57.4
0.2
2002
1,627,142
999
61.4
1.1
2003
1,732,632
1,410
81.4
19.9
2004
1,711,916
1,887
110.2
43.1

 

[gonefishie]

Re: Food for thought

* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

Ah hah...noted the asterisk part? My guess is that all those other years the total was for all U.S soldier served all over the world. The asterisk ones didn't includes the other parts of the world.

 

[JB]

Re: Food for thought

What a ghoulish discussion!

Any death of a young person is tragic. Where, when and how is of little matter, except families and loved ones of those who die in war may take pride in the sacrifice.

I agree that the media lie to us by picking and choosing what facts to broadcast, but I am not a conspiracy theorist. I think they pick and choose what will get their shows viewers, sort of like watching the prosecution case in court but omitting the case for the defense because it doesn't sell diet plans or exercise equipment.

We do the same thing, except we aren't trying to sell Bowflex. We are trying to sell our own points of view about things. We pick and choose the facts that support our view, and sometimes we exaggerate those facts or even repeat non-facts we got from a source we unwisely trust. Unfortunately, "news" media cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. Neither can those pundits who spout homemade wisdom for consumption by prebiased audiences.

Half of the truth is a lie.

 

[Drowned Rat]

Re: Food for thought

I don't see the point in correlating current fatality statistics to historical ones in this context. It almost sounds like you're trying to justify the deaths of our soldiers by comparing them to worse numbers in the past. What consolation is it to anyone that we've lost fewer men and women than we did in the past.

 

[PW2]

Re: Food for thought

It's a completely irrelevant argument.

One death is too many in an ill-defined unachievable mission.

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Food for thought

It's a completely irrelevant argument.

One death is too many in an ill-defined unachievable mission.

That last sentence clearly shows the problem and the divide very clearly. It IS achievable, that is if we don't defeat ourselves (hat tip Harry Reid). How can you lose a war if you never lose a battle? It just depends whether you want to give up or stick it out to win.

How can you determine the 'right' amount of death that is OK to win this war? Is it a binary one is too many? You can't look at it that way. We are battling radical islam that is bent on our destruction. That is a pretty good objective to me. One that is worht the investment we are making. One that WILL cost us more deaths if we do not stick this out and win it.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Food for thought

Right on Roger \m/