Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY SIX YEARS
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  08:59:29  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I was forwrded this email today and I must say I was surprised by these numbers:

Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY SIX YEARS



Military losses for 20 years

These are some rather eye-opening facts: 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 over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. 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
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 .......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ........ 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293 --------------------------------------
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 ......... 1,984 --------------------------------------
2000 .......... 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 .......... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ......... 919
2006.......... 920 ---------------------------------------


If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I. Do
these
figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle
East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's
presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was
even
more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President
(Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military
fatalities!


These figures indicate that many of our Media and Politicians will
pick
and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their
agenda-driven reporting. 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?


Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;
that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq ,
are
mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN --- just one more media lie! The
latest
census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American
citizens, by Race:


European descent (White) ....... 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 ..................................... 33%


You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars
figure...and they sway public opinion! (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

Now ask yourself these two questions:


"Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics
like
these?" and "Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they
do?


"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  09:14:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First, the death stats are wrong. From the link:

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 1,228
2004 1,874
2005 1,942
2006 1,858

I don't ever recall the media saying that racial minorities were high among casualties, but that the poor were high among casualties. Anyone have any stats for that?

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 02/27/2008 09:34:16
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  09:27:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, if by "I was surprised" you mean "wow-- they don't match the actual data from the link at all, and seem to be made up to make Democrats look bad through nothing but lies" then yeah, it's surprising.

On page 10 of the linked PDF, you have "Table 4. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part I, Total Military Personnel"

And it gives:

1980: 2392 1990: 1507 2000: 758
1981: 2380 1991: 1787 2001: 891
1982: 2319 1992: 1293 2002: 999
1983: 2365 1993: 1213 2003: 1228
1984: 1999 1994: 1075 2004: 1874
1985: 2252 1995: 1040 2005: 1942
1986: 1984 1996: 974 2006: 1858
1987: 1983 1997: 817 2007: No data
1988: 1819 1998: 827
1989: 1636 1999: 796

This is straight from page ten. Notice-- these numbers don't match at all the ones in the email.

If we total 1992-1999, we get: 8035, which is no where near the fake numbers in the email.

If we total 2000-2006, we get: 9550. Oops. And that's just through 2006!

How stupid do you have to be to lie to try and prove your point, but then direct the person to the data that shows a) that you're a liar, and b) that the opposite is true of the point you're trying to make?!?

Idiots.

Thoughts, Bill scott?
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  09:57:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
How stupid do you have to be to lie to try and prove your point, but then direct the person to the data that shows a) that you're a liar, and b) that the opposite is true of the point you're trying to make?!?
It's not hard when your target audience are reactionary morons so partisan and so unthinking that they swallow any lie that supports their fantasies. In other words, Bill scott.

Seriously, Bill, when are you going to get a clue? How many times can you be burned by your own side before it dawns on you that they are lying to you? How many times can you be duped before you realize that all the misinformation about liberals and global warming that you fill your head with is total propaganda? When are you going to realize that it is people like you who are responsible for flushing this country down the toilet?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  10:29:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Well, if by "I was surprised" you mean "wow-- they don't match the actual data from the link at all, and seem to be made up to make Democrats look bad through nothing but lies" then yeah, it's surprising.

On page 10 of the linked PDF, you have "Table 4. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part I, Total Military Personnel"

And it gives:

1980: 2392 1990: 1507 2000: 758
1981: 2380 1991: 1787 2001: 891
1982: 2319 1992: 1293 2002: 999
1983: 2365 1993: 1213 2003: 1228
1984: 1999 1994: 1075 2004: 1874
1985: 2252 1995: 1040 2005: 1942
1986: 1984 1996: 974 2006: 1858
1987: 1983 1997: 817 2007: No data
1988: 1819 1998: 827
1989: 1636 1999: 796

This is straight from page ten. Notice-- these numbers don't match at all the ones in the email.

If we total 1992-1999, we get: 8035, which is no where near the fake numbers in the email.

If we total 2000-2006, we get: 9550. Oops. And that's just through 2006!

How stupid do you have to be to lie to try and prove your point, but then direct the person to the data that shows a) that you're a liar, and b) that the opposite is true of the point you're trying to make?!?

Idiots.

Thoughts, Bill scott?


I wonder why they fudged the data just to show Bill had more deaths on his watch? That is lame.

But the data still does surprise me. The Bush number sounds about right to me but I never would have guessed that many service people died during the Clinton era

8035 deaths/ 8 years/ 365 days= 2.75 deaths per day during the Clinton era

9550 deaths/7 years/ 365 days= 3.73 deaths per day, so far, during the Bush era.


I guess I don't remember the media rattling off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence during the Clinton era but they have done this in abundance for the Bush years. Why? Were the soldiers during the Clinton years somehow not worthy of the same honor?

Also, with Bush holding the reigns for two wars while Clinton is perceived as a peace time prez I would have thought Bush's total to be much more then the 1515 that separates them for the 7 and 8 year periods.

But back to your original point, why taint the numbers? The real numbers seem to paint the same picture.

Wow, look how many occured between 1980-1988!

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 02/27/2008 10:37:18
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  10:52:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh, I should have guessed. Bill whizzes right past the lies and tries to spin it that the figures still support his accusations of liberal bias. Reality just never comes into things, I guess.

Bill scott--enemy of truth and decent people everywhere.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  10:57:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I believe that you also need to consider combat survival rates.
For soldiers injured in combat today, the survival rate is 90 percent or higher--a significant improvement even since the Gulf War in the early 1990s, according to Col. W. Bryan Gamble, M.D., Commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Pelayo
Skeptic Friend

USA
70 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:02:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Pelayo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I find the accidental deaths interesting. During the Reagan and Bush I years there were over 1000 deaths per year. Clinton's and Bush II's military got a better handle on safety. The peak for accidents was 1980, a Carter effect? Also the suicide deaths have decreased from the peak in 1986. I'm no military morale expert but that sort of goes against conventional wisdom concerning stress and combat issues.

I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.

"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft

"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:07:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, Bill scott, it seems that you're obviously looking for anything to justify the fabricated notion that the media are being particularly hard on Bush. But it simply won't wash.

Given that active military deaths were trending down during the Clinton years, and given that we weren't actively fighting major wars during the Clinton years, the lack of interest in broadcasting such deaths seems logical. Note that in 2001 or 2002, the media weren't interested in discussing military deaths either. And I seriously doubt you (or the various hack media outlets you chose to get your news from) bothered to notice.

But obviously, once we're in a war, and once we're occupying two different countries, a) deaths will go up, and b) the media will give it more attention.

You argument that "the real numbers seem to paint the same picture" is completely illogical. The "picture" your emailer was trying to paint was that military deaths under Bush were significantly less than under Clinton. But this obviously isn't the case. Indeed, it's almost certainly going to be the opposite! The actual numbers for Clinton and Bush, assuming ca. 1,500 for 2007, will be ca. 20,000, meaning that Clinton is ca. 40% and Bush ca. 60%. In the fake numbers, the total dead is ca. 22,500, with Clinton responsible for 60% and Bush just 40%.

So what's your argument? That the media should have been quicker to point out military deaths under the Clinton administration? Why? As I noted, the trend was a clear and unmistakable downward one. Indeed, by the end of his second term, deaths were less than half was what we'd seen under G.H.W. Bush or Reagan.

So then you're left saying that the media are over-reacting for reporting on military deaths while we occupy two countries obviously hostile to our presence. But how can we support this notion of over-reporting, though? You say that media have "in abundance" acted to "rattl[e] off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence," during the Bush administration, but is that the case? In abundance? Really? I doubt it.

And finally, yeah, the numbers for the 80's are high. I guess that's Cold War stuff going on? And fighting in Central and South America? I don't know.

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:11:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Pelayo
Also the suicide deaths have decreased from the peak in 1986.
Really? I was under the impression that they'd skyrocketed!

Hmmm. Some searching seems to suggest that it goes through normal fluctuations. And when you're talking about what seems to be in the range of 10-15 per 10,000 then it's easy to see how it would be hard to pick out any trends.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:13:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by moakley

I believe that you also need to consider combat survival rates.
For soldiers injured in combat today, the survival rate is 90 percent or higher--a significant improvement even since the Gulf War in the early 1990s, according to Col. W. Bryan Gamble, M.D., Commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

This is actually a really good point. People who are living now in many cases would be counted among the dead were they to have suffered the same injury 10 or 15 years ago.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:21:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by moakley

I believe that you also need to consider combat survival rates.
For soldiers injured in combat today, the survival rate is 90 percent or higher--a significant improvement even since the Gulf War in the early 1990s, according to Col. W. Bryan Gamble, M.D., Commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.




Interesting. I read this morning and was a litte freaked out. Dude, it's just like what they said it would in the 1984 smash hit "The Terminator."

http://tinyurl.com/38ffzc

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:45:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist




Well, Bill scott, it seems that you're obviously looking for anything to justify the fabricated notion that the media are being particularly hard on Bush. But it simply won't wash.


That is not my point at all. My point it how easy it is for the media to portray a particular message or slant what they want to get out for all to see. They have done it to Bush, they have done it to Clinton, they have done it to Bush, Reagen, Carter... The media can spin with the best of them is my point.


Given that active military deaths were trending down during the Clinton years, and given that we weren't actively fighting major wars during the Clinton years, the lack of interest in broadcasting such deaths seems logical. Note that in 2001 or 2002, the media weren't interested in discussing military deaths either. And I seriously doubt you (or the various hack media outlets you chose to get your news from) bothered to notice.

But obviously, once we're in a war, and once we're occupying two different countries, a) deaths will go up, and b) the media will give it more attention.

You argument that "the real numbers seem to paint the same picture" is completely illogical. The "picture" your emailer was trying to paint was that military deaths under Bush were significantly less than under Clinton. But this obviously isn't the case. Indeed, it's almost certainly going to be the opposite! The actual numbers for Clinton and Bush, assuming ca. 1,500 for 2007, will be ca. 20,000, meaning that Clinton is ca. 40% and Bush ca. 60%. In the fake numbers, the total dead is ca. 22,500, with Clinton responsible for 60% and Bush just 40%.

So what's your argument? That the media should have been quicker to point out military deaths under the Clinton administration? Why? As I noted, the trend was a clear and unmistakable downward one. Indeed, by the end of his second term, deaths were less than half was what we'd seen under G.H.W. Bush or Reagan.

So then you're left saying that the media are over-reacting for reporting on military deaths while we occupy two countries obviously hostile to our presence. But how can we support this notion of over-reporting, though? You say that media have "in abundance" acted to "rattl[e] off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence," during the Bush administration, but is that the case? In abundance? Really? I doubt it.



Again, I am not totally sure if the media gave me this perception or where I got it, but I was under the impression that military deaths were huge in disproportion to the last 4 administrations and that I was shocked to see the actual numbers, considering we are occupying two foreign countries in very hostile conditions. I would have guessed Bush 85% Clinton 15% and never would have guessed that many more service men died during the 80's. I suspect most of this perception came from seeing the deaths reported on TV day after day. So anyway, what ever their motive, I picked up this notion from the media only to find that is was off.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  11:49:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Good grief, the email can't even be bothered to get the years correct. Bush was not President in 2000. That's a Clinton year. There are only six years of data available for Bush, starting with 2001. And Clinton went from 1993 to 2000.
Originally posted by Bill scott

I guess I don't remember the media rattling off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence during the Clinton era but they have done this in abundance for the Bush years. Why? Were the soldiers during the Clinton years somehow not worthy of the same honor?
There was a total of one (1, uno) death due to hostile action during the Clinton years. There were a total of 2,596 deaths due to hostile action during the first six years of Bush's reign. Do you think that might have something to do with it?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  12:36:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bill wrote:
But the data still does surprise me. The Bush number sounds about right to me but I never would have guessed that many service people died during the Clinton era
Maybe you should watch Michael Moore's movie "Bowling For Columbine." In it he mentions and is harshly critical of all the major military actions carried out by the Clinton administration. Gorgo has frequently brought up Clinton's military exuberance on this forum. In short, the uber-liberals will probably not be surprised by these numbers.

I am only slightly surprised by these numbers. I was never a fan of the Clinton administration. While I was an undergraduate student at Ohio State, the first town meeting with Madalyn Albright was held at my school. I and many of my friends protested the proposed bombing of Iraq, and one of my friends was even escorted out of the building because he kept repeating his question after Albright gave him an evasive, political answer.

I guess I don't remember the media rattling off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence during the Clinton era but they have done this in abundance for the Bush years. Why? Were the soldiers during the Clinton years somehow not worthy of the same honor?


Cune is right, the media pays more attention when it is called a war. And the Bush administration has been rather consistent about reminding us that we're at war - an absurdity since the war is against "terror" an abstract concept, and the actual forces we're fighting are diverse and not unified in any kind of organized fashion. Similar to the (failed) war on drugs.

Also, with Bush holding the reigns for two wars while Clinton is perceived as a peace time prez I would have thought Bush's total to be much more then the 1515 that separates them for the 7 and 8 year periods.
Get a hold of the foreign civilian deaths. I'd love to see those compared. Many times more Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the US war against Iraq, and yet the US media has spent little time lamenting their loss or honoring their memory. Yeah, that liberal media - they just love foreigners and hate the military so much!

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  12:48:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Good grief, the email can't even be bothered to get the years correct. Bush was not President in 2000. That's a Clinton year. There are only six years of data available for Bush, starting with 2001. And Clinton went from 1993 to 2000.
Originally posted by Bill scott

I guess I don't remember the media rattling off the names of the fallen soldiers and dedicating entire news programs in moments of silence during the Clinton era but they have done this in abundance for the Bush years. Why? Were the soldiers during the Clinton years somehow not worthy of the same honor?
There was a total of one (1, uno) death due to hostile action during the Clinton years. There were a total of 2,596 deaths due to hostile action during the first six years of Bush's reign. Do you think that might have something to do with it?


A death is a death, no? Is a non-hostile death any less of an honor or sacrifice? Again, my perception, based on what I saw from the media, was that military deaths were highly disproportioned in the GWB reign then in the previous 4 administrations. I was surprised to see the real numbers were as close as they were between Clinton and Bush, considering we are occupying two hostile countries, while Clinton's perception was that of a peace time prez.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.69 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000