Shocking Military Death Statistics

JCnflies · 03-19-2008, 10:28 PM

I just received this e-mail. I think many of the regulars around here might find this very surprising.

Among many conclusions that might be drwan, one of them is that our military in Iraq learns very quickly and is doing a very commendable job.

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the
armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)

1997 ............ . 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1, 983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............ . 890(George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year)
2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year)
2007........ ....899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

Press_Coverage · 03-20-2008, 02:53 AM

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2442260]I just received this e-mail. I think many of the regulars around here might find this very surprising.

Among many conclusions that might be drwan, one of them is that our military in Iraq learns very quickly and is doing a very commendable job.

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the
armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)

1997 ............ . 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1, 983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............ . 890(George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year)
2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year)
2007........ ....899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths[/QUOTE]

Because I feel bad for you, I'm going to give you a chance to do the work and research this "chain email" you received, and save yourself from embarrassment.

If you do not deduce from your own work that this data is a crock of shyt, and a long-debunked urban legend, then I'm going to return to this thread and provide you with the official numbers.

Otherwise, if you prefer to capitulate now, I'll simply remind you of a very basic rule of life -- one you've undoubtedly received several times before: [B]Never believe chain emails. [/B]

Winstonbiggs · 03-20-2008, 05:38 AM

30,000 injured in Iraq. We are getting better at saving the lives of the injured in the field, much better.

JCnflies · 03-20-2008, 10:18 AM

THx for the heads up, but ................

1) Let's assume that stats at the urban legend site are accurate. If so, the total deaths under Bush is surprisingly few - and that is an incredible complement to the comptency of our troops. How so comparatively few can die at a time of war compared to the relative tranquility of the previous presidency is remarkable.

2) I noticed that one of the urban legends sites claims (about demographics) was supported, but other conclusions are not. We all know everyone has an agenda and I am sure the urban legends guys have theirs. Minus a link to an independent source, why should they be trusted?

Come Back to NY · 03-20-2008, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2442640]THx for the heads up, but ................

1) Let's assume that stats at the urban legend site are accurate. If so, the total deaths under Bush is surprisingly few - and that is an incredible complement to the comptency of our troops. How so comparatively few can die at a time of war compared to the relative tranquility of the previous presidency is remarkable.

2) I noticed that one of the urban legends sites claims (about demographics) was supported, but other conclusions are not. We all know everyone has an agenda and I am sure the urban legends guys have theirs. Minus a link to an independent source, why should they be trusted?[/QUOTE]

actually this is a from the DOD and was released months ago...it is not combat deaths but inclusive of deaths in training, active duty guys who may have died in accidents, etc....I will post the link in a bit....

Buster · 03-20-2008, 11:29 AM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2442462]30,000 injured in Iraq. We are getting better at saving the lives of the injured in the field, much better.[/QUOTE]

I believe the reason that so few die in the Iraq conflict is a direct result of the superior body armor our troops are wearing. Not to take away from the improved medical procedures and technology used by the military, that obviously helps, too.

I have no evidence to support this but I think we are going to see a new generation of "mumbling homeless men" who served in Iraq.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 03-20-2008, 11:32 AM

Why was 1983 left out?

That was the year of the suicide attack in Beirut.

Equilibrium · 03-20-2008, 01:45 PM

I have to call into question the veracity of some of the statistics listed above; the '95-'99 years above are incorrect. The DoD's Personell and Procurement Section offers a listing of yearly total casualties from the 1980-99 period:

[url]http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/WWT.PDF[/url]

1980 was the year when we lost 8 men during Operation Eagle Claw in Iran.

1985 was the year when about 250 members of the 82nd Airborne Division were killed in an air crash in Newfoundland, Canada returning from a peacekeeping mission in the Sinai desert.

I remember watching as a five year old President Reagan attending the memorial services.

May the sacrifices of all our servicemen, in peace and war, never be forgotten.

2foolish197 · 03-20-2008, 01:50 PM

god bless every single one of those dear souls.

Equilibrium · 03-24-2008, 05:21 PM

With US DoD personnel casualties in the Iraqi theater of operations reaching the dubious mark of 4,000 yesterday, I felt this thread needed a bump so that we can better appreciate both the costs and the trends in the scale of US military operations over the past generation.

DeanPatsFan · 03-24-2008, 05:25 PM

[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2442436]Because I feel bad for you, I'm going to give you a chance to do the work and research this "chain email" you received, and save yourself from embarrassment.

If you do not deduce from your own work that this data is a crock of shyt, and a long-debunked urban legend, then I'm going to return to this thread and provide you with the official numbers.

Otherwise, if you prefer to capitulate now, I'll simply remind you of a very basic rule of life -- one you've undoubtedly received several times before: [B]Never believe chain emails. [/B][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=45543[/url]

Jet Blast · 03-24-2008, 07:42 PM

As Come Back said, these figures include accidents. I work for the Defense Department, and I often see email traffic regarding some of these fatal accidents. Without further breakdown, these numbers mean little beyond the obvious and unfortunate fact that many americans lose their life every year serving their country. Serving in the military is a dangerous profession, even away from the front lines.

JCnflies · 03-24-2008, 11:29 PM

Before I make my point, please let me preface by saying I am not sure one way or the other about the war and, though I am a conservative, I believe Bush is not one and I am disappointed in him. I am not of the mindset that the war was a horrific idea, but I do think it has only recently started to be managed with some sense of efficiency.

The point I am trying to make is that our military, like or hate Bush, must be doing an incredible job. We are managing two simulataneous war theatres nad, somehow, the death toll is not enormously greater than the death toll that is incurred from accidents in nonwar times. I saw a similar stat ince that suggested that there were less military deaths in Iraq than there were murders in a part of our country.

IU do not take from these statistics that Iraq is somehow safe and that our soldiers have an easy time of it - that would be foolish. However, these stats do reinforce a notion that pretty much all returning vets of Iraq have insisted on (that much good is being realized, that our miltary is succeeding and under no circumstances should we believe anything on the news) and I think it is fair to say that the soldiers from the top down are doing an amazingly effective job.

Press_Coverage · 03-29-2008, 05:03 AM

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2448800]Before I make my point, please let me preface by saying I am not sure one way or the other about the war and, though I am a conservative, I believe Bush is not one and I am disappointed in him. I am not of the mindset that the war was a horrific idea, but I do think it has only recently started to be managed with some sense of efficiency.

The point I am trying to make is that our military, like or hate Bush, must be doing an incredible job. We are managing two simulataneous war theatres nad, somehow, the death toll is not enormously greater than the death toll that is incurred from accidents in nonwar times. I saw a similar stat ince that suggested that there were less military deaths in Iraq than there were murders in a part of our country.

IU do not take from these statistics that Iraq is somehow safe and that our soldiers have an easy time of it - that would be foolish. However, these stats do reinforce a notion that pretty much all returning vets of Iraq have insisted on (that much good is being realized, that our miltary is succeeding and under no circumstances should we believe anything on the news) and I think it is fair to say that the soldiers from the top down are doing an amazingly effective job.[/QUOTE]

Overall, yes, they are. But you're not doing a good job posting long-debunked propaganda pieces in the form of forwarded chain e-mails.

And then spinning your mistake by deflecting to a "yeah, but..." distraction.

Unless you're going to sit here and argue that 4000 servicemen would still be dead, and another 30,000 would still be disfigured, and another 80,000 would still be enduring profound mental trauma, then you really should have let this sorry thread die.

Embarrassing.

03-19-2008, 10:28 PM	#1
JCnflies All Pro Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,709	Shocking Military Death Statistics I just received this e-mail. I think many of the regulars around here might find this very surprising. Among many conclusions that might be drwan, one of them is that our military in Iraq learns very quickly and is doing a very commendable job. The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006: 1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year) 1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year) 1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year) 1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year) 1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year) 1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year) 1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year) 1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year) 1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year) 1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year) 1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year) 1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year) 1997 ............ . 817 ( Clinton Year) 1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year) 1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year) 2000 ..........1, 983 ( Clinton Year) 2001 ............ . 890(George W Year) 2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year) 2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year) 2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) 2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year) 2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year) 2007........ ....899 (George W Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

03-20-2008, 02:53 AM	#2
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	[QUOTE=JCnflies;2442260]I just received this e-mail. I think many of the regulars around here might find this very surprising. Among many conclusions that might be drwan, one of them is that our military in Iraq learns very quickly and is doing a very commendable job. The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006: 1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year) 1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year) 1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year) 1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year) 1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year) 1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year) 1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year) 1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year) 1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year) 1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year) 1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year) 1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year) 1997 ............ . 817 ( Clinton Year) 1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year) 1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year) 2000 ..........1, 983 ( Clinton Year) 2001 ............ . 890(George W Year) 2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year) 2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year) 2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) 2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year) 2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year) 2007........ ....899 (George W Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths[/QUOTE] Because I feel bad for you, I'm going to give you a chance to do the work and research this "chain email" you received, and save yourself from embarrassment. If you do not deduce from your own work that this data is a crock of shyt, and a long-debunked urban legend, then I'm going to return to this thread and provide you with the official numbers. Otherwise, if you prefer to capitulate now, I'll simply remind you of a very basic rule of life -- one you've undoubtedly received several times before: [B]Never believe chain emails. [/B] Last edited by Press_Coverage; 03-20-2008 at 03:24 AM.

03-20-2008, 01:45 PM	#8
Equilibrium Why you would shoot a man before throwing him off a plane? All League Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,548	I have to call into question the veracity of some of the statistics listed above; the '95-'99 years above are incorrect. The DoD's Personell and Procurement Section offers a listing of yearly total casualties from the 1980-99 period: [url]http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/WWT.PDF[/url] 1980 was the year when we lost 8 men during Operation Eagle Claw in Iran. 1985 was the year when about 250 members of the 82nd Airborne Division were killed in an air crash in Newfoundland, Canada returning from a peacekeeping mission in the Sinai desert. I remember watching as a five year old President Reagan attending the memorial services. May the sacrifices of all our servicemen, in peace and war, never be forgotten. Last edited by Equilibrium; 03-20-2008 at 02:38 PM.

03-20-2008, 05:38 AM	#3
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,924	30,000 injured in Iraq. We are getting better at saving the lives of the injured in the field, much better.

03-20-2008, 10:18 AM	#4
JCnflies All Pro Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,709	THx for the heads up, but ................ 1) Let's assume that stats at the urban legend site are accurate. If so, the total deaths under Bush is surprisingly few - and that is an incredible complement to the comptency of our troops. How so comparatively few can die at a time of war compared to the relative tranquility of the previous presidency is remarkable. 2) I noticed that one of the urban legends sites claims (about demographics) was supported, but other conclusions are not. We all know everyone has an agenda and I am sure the urban legends guys have theirs. Minus a link to an independent source, why should they be trusted?

03-20-2008, 11:20 AM	#5
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=JCnflies;2442640]THx for the heads up, but ................ 1) Let's assume that stats at the urban legend site are accurate. If so, the total deaths under Bush is surprisingly few - and that is an incredible complement to the comptency of our troops. How so comparatively few can die at a time of war compared to the relative tranquility of the previous presidency is remarkable. 2) I noticed that one of the urban legends sites claims (about demographics) was supported, but other conclusions are not. We all know everyone has an agenda and I am sure the urban legends guys have theirs. Minus a link to an independent source, why should they be trusted?[/QUOTE] actually this is a from the DOD and was released months ago...it is not combat deaths but inclusive of deaths in training, active duty guys who may have died in accidents, etc....I will post the link in a bit....

03-20-2008, 11:29 AM	#6
Buster not a rocket surgeon All League Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar Posts: 4,267	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2442462]30,000 injured in Iraq. We are getting better at saving the lives of the injured in the field, much better.[/QUOTE] I believe the reason that so few die in the Iraq conflict is a direct result of the superior body armor our troops are wearing. Not to take away from the improved medical procedures and technology used by the military, that obviously helps, too. I have no evidence to support this but I think we are going to see a new generation of "mumbling homeless men" who served in Iraq.

03-20-2008, 11:32 AM	#7
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	Why was 1983 left out? That was the year of the suicide attack in Beirut.

03-20-2008, 01:50 PM	#9
2foolish197 i suspect hanky-panky All League Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: astoria Posts: 4,528	god bless every single one of those dear souls.

03-24-2008, 05:21 PM	#10
Equilibrium Why you would shoot a man before throwing him off a plane? All League Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,548	With US DoD personnel casualties in the Iraqi theater of operations reaching the dubious mark of 4,000 yesterday, I felt this thread needed a bump so that we can better appreciate both the costs and the trends in the scale of US military operations over the past generation.

03-24-2008, 05:25 PM	#11
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,123	[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2442436]Because I feel bad for you, I'm going to give you a chance to do the work and research this "chain email" you received, and save yourself from embarrassment. If you do not deduce from your own work that this data is a crock of shyt, and a long-debunked urban legend, then I'm going to return to this thread and provide you with the official numbers. Otherwise, if you prefer to capitulate now, I'll simply remind you of a very basic rule of life -- one you've undoubtedly received several times before: [B]Never believe chain emails. [/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=45543[/url]

03-24-2008, 07:42 PM	#12
Jet Blast is full of status All League Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Forked River, NJ Posts: 4,478	As Come Back said, these figures include accidents. I work for the Defense Department, and I often see email traffic regarding some of these fatal accidents. Without further breakdown, these numbers mean little beyond the obvious and unfortunate fact that many americans lose their life every year serving their country. Serving in the military is a dangerous profession, even away from the front lines.

03-24-2008, 11:29 PM	#13
JCnflies All Pro Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,709	Before I make my point, please let me preface by saying I am not sure one way or the other about the war and, though I am a conservative, I believe Bush is not one and I am disappointed in him. I am not of the mindset that the war was a horrific idea, but I do think it has only recently started to be managed with some sense of efficiency. The point I am trying to make is that our military, like or hate Bush, must be doing an incredible job. We are managing two simulataneous war theatres nad, somehow, the death toll is not enormously greater than the death toll that is incurred from accidents in nonwar times. I saw a similar stat ince that suggested that there were less military deaths in Iraq than there were murders in a part of our country. IU do not take from these statistics that Iraq is somehow safe and that our soldiers have an easy time of it - that would be foolish. However, these stats do reinforce a notion that pretty much all returning vets of Iraq have insisted on (that much good is being realized, that our miltary is succeeding and under no circumstances should we believe anything on the news) and I think it is fair to say that the soldiers from the top down are doing an amazingly effective job.

03-29-2008, 05:03 AM	#14
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	[QUOTE=JCnflies;2448800]Before I make my point, please let me preface by saying I am not sure one way or the other about the war and, though I am a conservative, I believe Bush is not one and I am disappointed in him. I am not of the mindset that the war was a horrific idea, but I do think it has only recently started to be managed with some sense of efficiency. The point I am trying to make is that our military, like or hate Bush, must be doing an incredible job. We are managing two simulataneous war theatres nad, somehow, the death toll is not enormously greater than the death toll that is incurred from accidents in nonwar times. I saw a similar stat ince that suggested that there were less military deaths in Iraq than there were murders in a part of our country. IU do not take from these statistics that Iraq is somehow safe and that our soldiers have an easy time of it - that would be foolish. However, these stats do reinforce a notion that pretty much all returning vets of Iraq have insisted on (that much good is being realized, that our miltary is succeeding and under no circumstances should we believe anything on the news) and I think it is fair to say that the soldiers from the top down are doing an amazingly effective job.[/QUOTE] Overall, yes, they are. But you're not doing a good job posting long-debunked propaganda pieces in the form of forwarded chain e-mails. And then spinning your mistake by deflecting to a "yeah, but..." distraction. Unless you're going to sit here and argue that 4000 servicemen would still be dead, and another 30,000 would still be disfigured, and another 80,000 would still be enduring profound mental trauma, then you really should have let this sorry thread die. Embarrassing.