Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Shocking Military Death Statistics

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like

    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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    30,000 injured in Iraq. We are getting better at saving the lives of the injured in the field, much better.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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....

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why was 1983 left out?

    That was the year of the suicide attack in Beirut.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    god bless every single one of those dear souls.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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]

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Forked River, NJ
    Posts
    4,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us