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

The Anti-War Wizards Ain't Going To Like This

Mike

Well-known member
The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and '82 — a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and '06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CRS, which is the public policy research arm of Congress, issued its findings in the June report "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics."


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Like most neocons that proudly display some new statistic that affirms their preconceived but baseless opinion, your statistics are a fraction of the story.

If you compare casualties as a percentage of troops, you will find that less than 0.2% of the troops in 81-82 were casualties, while over 0.3% of the 05-06 troops were casualties. There were 25% more troops in 81 than there were in 06 which means you are more likely to die in 06 than in 81.

Further, the WAY our soldiers died in 81 and 82 were different than those in 05 and 06. There were NO casualties from hostile action in 81 and 82. In 05 and 06, 40% of the casualties are from hostile action. Which means you are hundreds of times more likely to die from an enemy bullet in 06.

During the entire Clinton administration, we lost ONE soldier to hostile action. In the 20 years of Reagan,Bush,Clinton, we lost 220 soldiers to hostile action. Under duhmya Bush we have lost over 4,000

FWIW, there were twice as many losses of soldiers under Reagan due to terrorist attacks than Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations, combined. So when you talk about how Clinton should have done something, maybe you should back up a bit and critique Reagan's policy of supplying weapons and training to Osama Bin Laden instead of trying to point fingers at Clinton.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
During the entire Clinton administration, we lost ONE soldier to hostile action.

How about those killed by Al Qaeda at the Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? Over 200 people killed and 4,000 wounded.

How can you say only one soldier died due hostile action when 17 died when Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole?

If you start with 911 and go backwards just look at how many civilians and soldiers died under Clinton. Look at how many terrorist attacks there was under his watch. There was more under Clinton than Bush and Bush is at war with the Terrorist.

I would like to see where you got your statistics that more died under Reagan.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
During the entire Clinton administration, we lost ONE soldier to hostile action.

How about those killed by Al Qaeda at the Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? Over 200 people killed and 4,000 wounded.

How can you say only one soldier died due hostile action when 17 died when Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole?

If you start with 911 and go backwards just look at how many civilians and soldiers died under Clinton. Look at how many terrorist attacks there was under his watch. There was more under Clinton than Bush and Bush is at war with the Terrorist.

I would like to see where you got your statistics that more died under Reagan.

A+ don't expect to get an answer! YOu back this buch in a corner and they bury their head in the sand like the good little liberals they are, that or use the word neocon to excess without merit :D
Sometimes i think that Greg uses that word to try and make himself look intelligent, but those that know him know better :twisted:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
During the entire Clinton administration, we lost ONE soldier to hostile action.

How about those killed by Al Qaeda at the Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? Over 200 people killed and 4,000 wounded.

How can you say only one soldier died due hostile action when 17 died when Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole?

If you start with 911 and go backwards just look at how many civilians and soldiers died under Clinton. Look at how many terrorist attacks there was under his watch. There was more under Clinton than Bush and Bush is at war with the Terrorist.

I would like to see where you got your statistics that more died under Reagan.
Did you read the document that the link leads to? It is called "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics" "Updated June 29, 2007"

Summary
This report is written in response to numerous requests for war casualty statistics
and lists of war dead. It provides tables, compiled by sources at the Department of
Defense (DOD), indicating the number of casualties among American military
personnel serving in principal wars and combat actions.
Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican
War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the
Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations
covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission, Lebanon Peacekeeping, Urgent
Fury in Grenada, Just Cause in Panama, Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Restore
Hope in Somalia, Uphold Democracy in Haiti, and the ongoing Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
For the more recent conflicts, starting with the Korean War, more detailed
information on types of casualties, and when available, demographics have been
included. This report also cites sources of published lists of military personnel killed
in principal wars and combat actions. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Go to
Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part II, Cause of Death
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division,
[http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf], accessed on June 27, 2007.
Note: As of February 28, 2007 (reflects preliminary counts for 2006 and revised figures for 2004 and 2005).

Argue all you want, but one of your own neocons posted the link. I just quoted the part you morons don't want published because it belies your own version of urban legends.....with no basis in fact[/quote]
 

jigs

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
One is too many! Ask any mother.

while I agree with this statement, it is the job they signed up for. they knew the risks, and met them head on.
the ultimate price is paid by many so we can enjoy the life we live here......

if soldiers must die, I am happy it is "over there" rather than defending our beliefs on our own soil.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Looks like some can't grasp the fact that sometimes more total numbers of people in the military can get killed during so-called peacetime years than in this war on terrorism.

Those same people who use percentages, etc. don't really care about the deaths themselves, just the fact that that they can point blame.

I'm sure they take delight when more deaths are announced on the news so that they may contrive more arguments against this war.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
In case you guys have a problem scrolling up

here is the url: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

if that is too difficult for you, then try it this way LINK FOR NEOCON MORONS

Greg have you finished that anger management course yet! :D :D

You have tried that same tactic at some of the committee meetings :twisted: You know the name calling thing.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
Looks like some can't grasp the fact that sometimes more total numbers of people in the military can get killed during so-called peacetime years than in this war on terrorism.

Those same people who use percentages, etc. don't really care about the deaths themselves, just the fact that that they can point blame.

I'm sure they take delight when more deaths are announced on the news so that they may contrive more arguments against this war.



I've been to 4 funerals for kids....KIDS...killed in Iraq...I've yet to "take delight" during one funeral! :cry: :cry: :cry:

Pretty thoughtless thing to say there Mikey!
 

Steve

Well-known member
kolanuraven wrote:
One is too many! Ask any mother.

Jigs
while I agree with this statement, it is the job they signed up for. they knew the risks, and met them head on.
the ultimate price is paid by many so we can enjoy the life we live here......

as pointed out by the liberals Death by Military combat has been increasing....

but,... death by Suicide,..Homicide,.. illness... and accident has been decreasing sharply....

One is too many,.. but can a mother accept that her child committing suicide, or because he was out drinking easier then if he died in combat... I doubt if the death of their child would any easier,... for me a child's death would be extremely difficult regardless of the reason... But over time...healing may come with a deeper understanding that they died serving and doing what they wanted,.. instead of a life wasted...

as GoodPasture so un-eloquently pointed out Deaths by different causes means something...

Apparently liberals rank dieing by combat below getting drunk and slamming your car into a tree, getting robbed and killed for a few bucks so an addict can have another fix,..or committing suicide...


I would rather have died fighting an enemy of America then any of the other options listed in the table GoodPasture seemed so proud of...
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
I would rather have died fighting an enemy of America then any of the other options listed in the table GoodPasture seemed so proud of...
Accidents I can understand, and while regrettable re accidents. Putting kids between the warring factions fo a civil war is unnecessary and a purposeless waste of life. Provide an exit strategy, provide a mission, provide the body armor, provide the support, make the deaths of those kids killed by hostile fire mean something other than a campaign slogan.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
Looks like some can't grasp the fact that sometimes more total numbers of people in the military can get killed during so-called peacetime years than in this war on terrorism.

Those same people who use percentages, etc. don't really care about the deaths themselves, just the fact that that they can point blame.

I'm sure they take delight when more deaths are announced on the news so that they may contrive more arguments against this war.

It must be sad for them to belong to a party that's future success rely on our troops death and failure. That alone should tell them that they are on the wrong side. Who would ever want to be aligned in an argument on the side of your country failing so you can win the argument?

But then that is the way the Dem's are, you have failure in your sex life get an abortion, they fail at spending our money we pay more taxes, bad guys fail at proper use of guns they take away the good guys right to own guns. You fail at working the Dem's will give you welfare. You fail at leaving New Orleans the Dem's will blame Bush for you. Clinton fails at punishing terrorist 3,000 die on 911 another 3,000 in the wars to follow. You fail to understand proper penis placement the Dem's will give you Gay rights. You failed in learning about God, the Dem's will try to remove him from all areas of your life.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Suicide Called Epidemic Among U.S. Veterans

Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:30 PM



The U.S. military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS.


At least 6,256 U.S. veterans committed suicide in 2005 -- an average of 17 a day -- the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population.


While the suicide rate among the general population was 8.9 per 100,000, the level among veterans was between 18.7 and 20.8 per 100,000.

That figure rose to 22.9 to 31.9 suicides per 100,000 among veterans aged 20 to 24 -- almost four times the non-veteran average for the age group.


"Those numbers clearly show an epidemic of mental health problems," CBS quoted veterans' rights advocate Paul Sullivan as saying.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/vet_suicides/2007/11/15/49758.html

"Not everyone comes home from the war wounded, but the bottom line is nobody comes home unchanged," Paul Rieckhoff, a former Marine and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America told the network.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
It must be sad for them to belong to a party that's future success rely on our troops death and failure.
It is really sad that the once capable Republican Party is tied to the failure of planning and policy that has resulted in nearly 4,000 of our soldiers being killed and the future of our children in bankruptcy because of the borrow and spend policy of it's leadership. I really wish there was a conservative Republican worth voting for.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Goodpasture said:
aplusmnt said:
It must be sad for them to belong to a party that's future success rely on our troops death and failure.
It is really sad that the once capable Republican Party is tied to the failure of planning and policy that has resulted in nearly 4,000 of our soldiers being killed and the future of our children in bankruptcy because of the borrow and spend policy of it's leadership. I really wish there was a conservative Republican worth voting for.

I wouldn't bet the farm on it :wink:

Besides the polls--The only Repubs I consider truly conservative aren't faring well with the bookies either....

Odds to win Repub nomination:

Paul 8-1
Huckabee 16 to 1
Hunter 66 to 1


Odds to win the Presidency :roll:

Paul 16-1
Huckabee 66 to 1
Hunter 150 to 1
 

Tex

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
aplusmnt said:
It must be sad for them to belong to a party that's future success rely on our troops death and failure.
It is really sad that the once capable Republican Party is tied to the failure of planning and policy that has resulted in nearly 4,000 of our soldiers being killed and the future of our children in bankruptcy because of the borrow and spend policy of it's leadership. I really wish there was a conservative Republican worth voting for.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Top