U.S. Military fatalities 1980 - 2006 & nationalities

[MasterWolf1]

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

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the
following statistics


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)
&n bsp; 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

These figures show that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war!

[Americanhero1]

the clintons are evil dogs

[briann]

Yes.. Ive been saying that for a while.  But again, this will never make it through to the Main Stream Media.

Brian N.

[briann]

BTW, where were all the protesters when Bill Clinton was killing off 3 times as many U.S. serviceman than Bush?

Where were the liberals who supposedly care so much about millitary casualties then?

[MasterWolf1]

BTW, where were all the protesters when Bill Clinton was killing off 3 times as many U.S. serviceman than Bush?

Where were the liberals who supposedly care so much about millitary casualties then?

I wonder where were these protesting hypocrites at when Bubba and that pig Weasel Clark were bombarding Serb women and children to their deaths.

[SavetheWest]

Wow...unbelievable

[spiritus_persona]

BTW, where were all the protesters when Bill Clinton was killing off 3 times as many U.S. serviceman than Bush?

Where were the liberals who supposedly care so much about millitary casualties then?

I'll tell you where they were!  They were smoking marijuana, but they didn't inhale!  Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk!

[MassuhDGoodName]

I find such statistics completely meaningless.

If they are even accurate (and that's a mighty big "if") they prove absolutely nothing.
If some here want to join the "cheering squad" for the "best team" based on some piece of paper produced by three people with an obvious "agenda", then be my guest.
The reason such numbers are skewed is because they do not reflect the number of personnel in active military service at any given time, don't distinguish between the number of "deaths by accident" during drill training, suicides, fraggings, etc..., don't account for the fact that Bush is killing off our National Guard plus hired non-military contracters instead of active full time Army, Marines, etc... .
And as far as "there being no wars then"...seems we so quickly and conveniently forget Somalia, Haiti, Balkans, plus all the "military advisers" snuffed out in any number of "secret wars" going on in South America, etc... .
Nor do these "statistics" in this "research" factor in the availability or lack thereof of emergency life-saving medical personnel, advances in battle injury treatment, etc...
The sad fact of the matter is that neither the Dems nor the Republicans are operating a Constitutional Government...both go to war without consent of Congress, often without even knowledge of Congress, and most definitely without a formal Declaration of War which only CONGRESS has the legal authority to issue.
And these particular wars are just the ones we actually hear about.
The CIA has its own air force as well as its own military forces; none of which are ever factored in to these "studies".
The real purpose of of this "think-tank" release is to encourage jingoistic cheers of "Dems-BAD!"..."Republicans-GOOD!"
Just you folks wait until the thousands upon thousands of crippled, maimed, blinded, amputated, and brain damaged military men and women come pouring back home...then you'll see what's left of the ones not killed by Bush.
Guess who's going to pay for their life-long medical expenses and full disability incomes?
That's right!......YOU are!
(p.s....and the country's already bankrupt even without paying for the war!)        

 

[briann]

I don't find the numbers meaningless.  Its not about their meaning regarding Bush, its about their meaning regarding Clinton.

Its just pure hypocracy.   There was NOBODY!!!! NOBODY!!!! marching in the streets to protest the WARmaster Clinton... who killed 3 times as many soldiers.   WHERE were they?

That doesnt change the fact that Bush is an incompetant comander in cheif... I'm as anti-Bush as they come.  But this is not about him... this is about CLINTON the hypocracy of his supporters.

[MassuhDGoodName]

U.S. IRAQ DEATHS TOP 4,000!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080322/D8VIP3NO0.html

[briann]

Yes.   thats about 8000 total (for Iraq and Afghanistan and other misc serviceman deaths) which is terrible.. we all agree.

[IslamIsCancer]

More important is WHO they killed, Clinton the bastard, killed Serbs, I will never get over that tragedy.

[newman]

There are usually more blacks killed than whites.

That's because in the event of incomming fire, when the sergeant yells "Get down!", all the blacks get up & boogie.