• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Number of Soldier killed

Jinglebob

Well-known member
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 conflicts 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. They 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 descent (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 descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic 10.74%
African American 9.67%
Asian 1.81%
Native American 1.09%
Other 2.33%
H m m ......

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/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm >

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

Mike

Well-known member
Thanks for that info, JB.

There are some here who will relentlessly argue with the facts.

Let's see if they post anything towards these numbers for arguments sake.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
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 conflicts 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. They 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 descent (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 descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic 10.74%
African American 9.67%
Asian 1.81%
Native American 1.09%
Other 2.33%
H m m ......

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/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm >

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

What leftwing propaganda?

The military is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. People are dying every day while serving from accidents, crime, stupidity and disease. Add in the combat deaths and it is a really dangerous job. What people are outraged about is that most of the combat deaths have come about because of incompetence in the White House. And while you are at it, the deaths within the military under Clinton were much less than under ronnie raygun and both the bushes. However, I'm sure that Clinton didn't really have anything to do with the number personally.[/i]
 

passin thru

Well-known member
You called that one right Mike as evidenced by SB"S post. He never fails, lind of like a postman who goes POSTAL











offended.jpg
 

hopalong

Well-known member
schnurrbart The military is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. People are dying every day while serving from accidents said:
However, I'm sure that Clinton didn't really have anything to do with the number personally[/b].[/i]

If that is the case how can you even suggest that this adminisration or any in the past are responsible for the deaths during their terms of office?
You can't have it both ways :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I just got this in email from a friend who checks this stuff out pretty thoroughly before forwarding:

Involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq
theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112
deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. Is 80.6 per 100,000
persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more
likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. Should pull out of Washington
 

quickdraw

Well-known member
MoGal said:
Involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq
theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112
deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. Is 80.6 per 100,000
persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more
likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. Should pull out of Washington

Great idea! Let the politicians clean up the place, they think they can are the only ones with any mind set anyway!
 

Steve

Well-known member
schnurrbart
the deaths within the military under Clinton were much less than under ronnie raygun and both the bushes. However, I'm sure that Clinton didn't really have anything to do with the number personally.

Actually Clinton had a direct impact on the service, he cut it in half....by his slashing the active forces he lowered total numbers..

but I bet his ratio was higher....

We sure could use those troops he fired now....
 
Top