|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2008 : 17:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
What would you call it, Mab? I'd say that if you invade a country of ca. 27 million, overthrow its government, and maintain troop levels of ca. 130,000 calling it an "occupation" isn't such a stretch. |
According to the Geneva Convention, an occupying nation is responsible for the internal security of the invaded country. Given what it looks like in Iraq, I don't feel that America have fulfilled its obligation as an occupying force.
Not that I think any of those actions are wise! But since I refuse to call it a "war" I am at a loss for a better term for what we're doing there. Occupation seems to fit, but I'm open to something else.
|
Fool's Errand comes to mind, for starters. It goes downhill from there...
Personally, I think that the invasion of Iraq was/is a crime against humanity, considering the number of civilian deaths so far.
|
*Sigh*  |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 17:36:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Here's another way to look at the data ("Unknown" is the total of "Pending" and "Undetermined"):
President | Carter | Reagan | Bush Sr | Clinton | W. Bush | Dems | Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Years | 1 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 18
All Deaths | 2392 | 17201 | 6223 | 7500 | 8792 | 9892 | 32216
Deaths/Year| 2392 | 2150 | 1556 | 938 | 1465 | 1099 | 1790
Accidental | 65.05% | 61.93% | 56.03% | 52.71% | 35.54% | 55.69% | 53.59%
Hostile | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.73% | 0.01% | 29.53% | 0.01% | 8.77%
Homicide | 7.27% | 5.00% | 5.19% | 5.83% | 2.97% | 6.18% | 4.48%
Illness | 17.52% | 18.30% | 18.17% | 18.67% | 15.22% | 18.39% | 17.43%
Suicide | 9.66% | 11.78% | 15.27% | 20.29% | 10.92% | 17.72% | 12.22%
Terror | 0.04% | 1.70% | 0.03% | 1.00% | 0.63% | 0.77% | 1.09%
Unknown | 0.46% | 0.95% | 2.09% | 1.63% | 5.20% | 1.34% | 2.33% |
Clearly, if you want to die in combat, enlist now while W is still in office.
|
I am still surprised that W. only has 1800 more service men deaths on his watch then does Clinton, considering the fact that Bush is occupying two hostile counties in the process.
I also found it interesting that the highest suicide rate came under Clinton at 20.3%, during peace times, while W. had the 2nd lowest, only behind Carter, during heavy combat tours. W. had better moral under heavy combat then did Clinton during peace time, interesting.
I also found it interesting the W. held the best saftey %, while occupying two hostile coutries.
I also found it interesting that the dems held a much higher suicide rate average then did the pubs. And that was all from Clinton.
|
"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 18:19:49 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 17:37:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
...Do mine ears deceive me, or was that a fairly overt reference to homosexuality? Didn't think they mentioned that sort of thing back in the black-and-white days of cinema...
|
Yup, it is. Chayefsky slipped in a lot of surprising things within that screenplay. James Coburn is also brilliant as the bizarre friend-turned-gung ho-militant and Melvyn Douglas as the pompous, somewhat deranged admiral. I believe Julie Andrews commented that this was her favorite film.
I linked to that clip in part due to several mentions of "honor" and "sacrifice" in the thread.
P.S. You might also be familiar with another film with political overtones written by Chayefsky, "Network". |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:08:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
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!
|
And here you have seriously erred. What you have failed to ask is how many of these are cobat deaths vs accidents. With any standing military of any size, accidents happen multiple times per day and some of them are fatal. Training excercise deaths, equipment failures (Osprey operational failures, F-14 and F-15 stress failures during these times), automotive accidents, etc occur. Plus, medicine never stands still. It's one of those pesky science things where the methods and modes improve over time.
Clinton did order troops in as part of an international peacekeeping force in several locations. If you remember, Somalia's conflict was a matter of some import during the Clinton administration. So was Bosnia and several other minor dust ups. Combat deaths happened here as well. But these were with international support.
George H. W. Bush (Iraq/Kuwait) had his own combats as did Reagan (Grenada), Carter (Iran rescue mission), and others before him. I do not know of any President since 1900 who did not have troops in a combat role in some theater during their tenure. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:18:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Here's another way to look at the data ("Unknown" is the total of "Pending" and "Undetermined"):
President | Carter | Reagan | Bush Sr | Clinton | W. Bush | Dems | Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Years | 1 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 18
All Deaths | 2392 | 17201 | 6223 | 7500 | 8792 | 9892 | 32216
Deaths/Year| 2392 | 2150 | 1556 | 938 | 1465 | 1099 | 1790
Accidental | 65.05% | 61.93% | 56.03% | 52.71% | 35.54% | 55.69% | 53.59%
Hostile | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.73% | 0.01% | 29.53% | 0.01% | 8.77%
Homicide | 7.27% | 5.00% | 5.19% | 5.83% | 2.97% | 6.18% | 4.48%
Illness | 17.52% | 18.30% | 18.17% | 18.67% | 15.22% | 18.39% | 17.43%
Suicide | 9.66% | 11.78% | 15.27% | 20.29% | 10.92% | 17.72% | 12.22%
Terror | 0.04% | 1.70% | 0.03% | 1.00% | 0.63% | 0.77% | 1.09%
Unknown | 0.46% | 0.95% | 2.09% | 1.63% | 5.20% | 1.34% | 2.33% |
Clearly, if you want to die in combat, enlist now while W is still in office.
|
I am still surprised that W. only has 1800 more service men deaths on his watch then does Clinton, considering the fact that Bush is occupying two hostile counties in the process.
I also found it interesting that the highest suicide rate came under Clinton at 20.3%, during “peace times”, while W. had the 2nd lowest, only behind Carter, during heavy combat tours. W. had better moral under heavy combat then did Clinton during peace time, interesting.
I also found it interesting the W. held the best saftey %, while occupying two hostile coutries.
I also found it interesting that the dems held a much higher suicide rate average then did the pubs. And that was all from Clinton.
|
And yet you gloss over the whole 6 vs 8 year thing.
W ain't done. He seems to just be warming up.
To have a completely fair comparison, you would have to subtract an additional 1,500 servicemen deaths to get the number of years right. That places deaths under Clinton at 2/3rds that of W for the same amount of time.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:41:13 [Permalink]
|
Deaths per year is a normalized value. W. has over three deaths for every two of Clinton's. W's accident and suicide rates are misleadingly low because of his high death-in-combat rate and his gigantic pending-or-undetermined rate (all of them have to total 100%, after all). If you toss those out as anomalous, W's overall death rate is comparable to Clinton's, as is his accident rate. Clinton still gets to be suicide king, but W. becomes the plague master, with over 23% of known, non-combat, non-terrorist deaths coming from disease.
Maybe tomorrow I'll recalculate all the individual categories on a per-year basis, so that the combat killings won't swamp the figures. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:58:27 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
REQUEST
| I state that you must be a very dishonest person if you cannot or do not attempt to respond to these two questions! |
RESPONSE
| Ok Mr. buck, you need to go have a nice stiff drink and calm down. That blood vessel in your forehead is about to explode. Take a pill as well! Go spend some time with your wife. Something... |
When the laughter and applause in your own ears quiets down, wipe the tears from your eyes, congratulate yourself on your own inestimable cleverness, and, acting like an adult for perhaps the first time in your life, please answer my questions.
I have not yet totally agreed with the rest of the menbers of SFN that you are an absolutely preposterous fake who posts and runs, refuses to respond to questions which you have solicited, uses totally unsubstantiated references, leaves a topic when confronted, and in general makes a total ass out of himself every time he opens a thread.
However, this current gallusgallusfeces behavior of yours - running away from a straightforward challenge to explain or apologize, leads me to not only believe every word I've been told about you, but to form opinions of my own, i.e, that you are a paltry coward!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 19:07:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
P.S. You might also be familiar with another film with political overtones written by Chayefsky, "Network".
|
Ah, yes! About the last year or two I've made a point of putting old "classics" in my Netflix queue. Somehow I just feel like I should see them. But in my opinion, not all of them have stood the test of time. I thought Casablanca was extremely melodramatic, I found The Dirty Dozen campy in parts, and Once Upon a Time in America was a snooze. Network, on the other hand, was a great film. I really liked it. The writing was superb. Rather than seeming dated, it sounded almost prophetic.
Ok, sorry about the hijack. Back to your regularly scheduled show...
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 20:16:12 [Permalink]
|
By the way, the overall death rate among all military for all reasons during the W years was 0.0879%.
For Clinton, the overall death rate was 0.0572%.
The age-adjusted death rate for the entire US population in 1996 was 0.0492%.
So, during the Clinton administration, the relative risk of joining the military was 1.1626. For W, it was 1.7866, or 54% more dangerous than Clinton. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 20:51:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Here's another way to look at the data ("Unknown" is the total of "Pending" and "Undetermined"):
President | Carter | Reagan | Bush Sr | Clinton | W. Bush | Dems | Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Years | 1 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 18
All Deaths | 2392 | 17201 | 6223 | 7500 | 8792 | 9892 | 32216
Deaths/Year| 2392 | 2150 | 1556 | 938 | 1465 | 1099 | 1790
Accidental | 65.05% | 61.93% | 56.03% | 52.71% | 35.54% | 55.69% | 53.59%
Hostile | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.73% | 0.01% | 29.53% | 0.01% | 8.77%
Homicide | 7.27% | 5.00% | 5.19% | 5.83% | 2.97% | 6.18% | 4.48%
Illness | 17.52% | 18.30% | 18.17% | 18.67% | 15.22% | 18.39% | 17.43%
Suicide | 9.66% | 11.78% | 15.27% | 20.29% | 10.92% | 17.72% | 12.22%
Terror | 0.04% | 1.70% | 0.03% | 1.00% | 0.63% | 0.77% | 1.09%
Unknown | 0.46% | 0.95% | 2.09% | 1.63% | 5.20% | 1.34% | 2.33% |
Clearly, if you want to die in combat, enlist now while W is still in office.
|
I am still surprised that W. only has 1800 more service men deaths on his watch then does Clinton, considering the fact that Bush is occupying two hostile counties in the process. |
Of course, you're missing out on two years of data for Bush. Given the current trends, it's more likely to be 4800 more. But somehow, I'm sure this will still be surprisingly low. Indeed, my guess is that whatever number is put forward, it will be surprisingly low. Never mind that your ORIGINAL post was all about how the totals under Clinton were higher. We're witnessing real goal-post moving before our eyes!
| I also found it interesting that the highest suicide rate came under Clinton at 20.3%, during peace times, while W. had the 2nd lowest, only behind Carter, during heavy combat tours. W. had better moral under heavy combat then did Clinton during peace time, interesting. |
This is curious. I notice from other searches that the number has moved around from ca. 10-15 per 10,000 over the last 20 or so years. This question certainly deserves further investigation.
| I also found it interesting the W. held the best saftey %, while occupying two hostile coutries. |
I'm sure this is a direct result of the fact of the wars. Let's say that there's an accidental death every 3 training missions. In peace time, you do 3 missions. Someone dies. Then you do 3 more. Someone else dies.
In a time of war, you do 3 missions. Someone dies. Then you do a REAL mission (or missions, whichever) and someone dies. Now, somehow, you have fewer deaths during non-combat operations. But is that because you're "safer" or because now, some of the deaths are categorized under a new rubric? |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 21:30:36 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by bngbuck |
Mr. Scott, please answer two questions:
1. How is it that you can ask such disingenuous questions, |
Give me an example.
| quoting from patently false representation of figures |
I fully accepted the corrected figures with out even an attempt at an argument. I did not compose the piece, it was sent to me as a mass email that is circling the net. I only posted it. The only claim I made was that I was surprised at the number of service men deaths on the Clinton watch it was claiming as it was my perception that by the time you added all the combat deaths from the two wars on top of all the other reasons service men die that Bush would have much more separation from Clinton then he did. I was not surprised by the number of Bush deaths but I was by the number of Clintons, even when revised. I was really surprised at the suicide rate of Clinton service personal. Why so high durning peace time?
| (whose E-mail source you did not state) |
Who care's who forwarded it to me?
| which you did not even check, |
I did not have time at that moment but I knew someone on SFN would for me.
| and then have the stupidity to supply the very figures |
I never supplied any figures. I posted an email that was forwarded to me and fully accepted the corrections of the emails supplied figures.
| that make a fool out of you, to this forum? |
Do you honestly believe I worry about impressing you?
| Can you say something to me to change the impression I have of you |
You already seem to have your mind made up.
| as an ignorant, stupid man, not worthy of listening to or engaging in discourse with? |
Oh now you're just being childish.
| 2. Can you admit your egregious error and hypocrisy in presenting these falsified figures and attempting to use them as a political argument of the very nature that you roundly condemn? |
No.
| Can you state clearly, "the figures I presented were falsified and I should have done the math, compared the actual figures to the ones I received in the E-mail, and either presented the true figures or not commented at all"? |
I could have. But I also fully accepted the correction when, I believe, Cune did.
| Otherwise, you look like a damn fool! |
Why? I never claimed that the email that was forwarded to me was factual. Only that I was surprised by the numbers it was claiming. After those numbers were corrected I still remain surprised.
| I state that you must be a very... |
[Rest of post lost due to database crash in Sept 1999 - Dave W.] |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 22:23:27 [Permalink]
|
Billy...
Why don't you find us some stats on the number of soldiers with permanent disability as a direct result of military service over those years.
That would be a better representation of the point you are trying to make. (even though it wouldn't make the point you are trying to make)
Get to it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Jumbo
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 02:45:14 [Permalink]
|
This turned up on another forum i visit so ill repeat my reply from there:
There is the issue though that they are absolute casualty figures rather than casualty rates. It doesnt take into account the changing size of the armed forces over the years. The 2005 and 2006 years excepted, as the post says they are incomplete casualty numbers compared to the other years, the rates are a different story.
The casualty rate peaks in 2004:
The columns are as follows
Year,
Total personnel from the Dod and http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personne...ry/309hist.htm,
casualties from the original post,
casualties per number personel,
percentage personnel who are casualties
2004 1411287 1887 0.001337077 0.133707743
2003 1423348 1410 0.000990622 0.099062211
2002 1411200 1007 0.000713577 0.07135771
2001 1385116 890 0.000642545 0.064254546
2000 1372252 774 0.000564036 0.056403634
1999 1385703 795 0.000573716 0.057371601
1998 1406830 826 0.000587136 0.058713562
1997 1438562 817 0.000567928 0.056792825
1996 1471722 974 0.00066181 0.066180977
1995 1518224 1040 0.000685011 0.068501091
1994 1610490 1075 0.000667499 0.066749871
1993 1705103 1213 0.000711394 0.071139397
1992 1807177 1293 0.000715481 0.071548055
1991 1986259 1787 0.000899681 0.089968126
1990 2046144 1508 0.000736996 0.073699603
1989 2130229 1636 0.000767993 0.076799255
1988 2138213 1819 0.00085071 0.085071038
1987 2174217 1983 0.000912052 0.091205248
1986 2169122 1984 0.000914656 0.091465579
1985 2151032 2252 0.001046939 0.104693933
1984 2138157 1999 0.000934917 0.093491731
1983 2123849 2465 0.001160629 0.116062865
1982 2108612 2318 0.001099301 0.109930134
1981 2082897 2380 0.001142639 0.114263931
1980 2050826 2392 0.001166359 0.116635931
We can see the early 1980s were particularly heavy casualty rate wise. However the numbers reduce in the late 1980s reaching just over half the start rate by the mid 1990s and falling to a low by 2000 (the rate is fairly steady near this low from 1997 to 2000)
The casualty rates increase year on year from 2001 onwards reaching a 24 year high in 2004.
The casualty rate falls through George H W Bush's presidency (you can see a small 1991 rise perhaps in part due to the war in that year) and through the Clinton one too. It rises and becomes the same as the early Reagan years only once George W Bush is in office. |
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 05:51:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Billy...
Why don't you find us some stats on the number of soldiers with permanent disability as a direct result of military service over those years.
That would be a better representation of the point you are trying to make. (even though it wouldn't make the point you are trying to make)
Get to it.
|
Why don't you? Snap to it, Sally... |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 06:46:38 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Jumbo |
| The casualty rate falls through George H W Bush's presidency (you can see a small 1991 rise perhaps in part due to the war in that year) and through the Clinton one too. It rises and becomes the same as the early Reagan years only once George W Bush is in office. |
With two wars being fought in hostile counties for much of his tenure I would expect the causality rate for W to rise. My point was/is that I was surprised that the gap between Clinton and Bush was what it was. With two battle fronts going on concurrently I would expect W to lead in hostile casualties. But I was surprised by how many accidents and suicides that took place under the Clinton watch with no major wars being waged. My perception was that the military personal were taking a pounding in casualties due to the two wars. But the realty is that the military suffered much more overall casualties in the 1980's then now, with no major wars being waged at that time. And that moral for W is good with the 2nd lowest sucide rate under his watch in spite of many heavy combat tours for the troops. Not what I expected. |
"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 02/28/2008 06:49:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY SIX YEARS
