Thursday, March 27, 2008

Military losses, 1980 through 2006... Facts you don't always hear of...




This was sent to me by a friend and it is a report published by Congressional Research Service showing actual data that shows "The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:"

Note the information on demographics and think back on several media and Democratic Party members who claimed that it is a vast majority of minorities who are serving and dying in the present war on terrorism...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are some rather eye-opening facts.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 today, we have lost over 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. 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 HW Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
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) George W years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:

European descent .......................... 69.12%
Hispanic ......................................... 12.5%
Black ............................................. 12.3%
Asian .............................................. 3.7%
Native American ............................. 1.0%
Other .............................................. 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic .................................... 10.74%
Black .......................................... 9.67%
Asian .......................................... 1.81%
Native American .......................... 1.09%
Other ........................................... 0.33%

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for liberal political gain). Nothing more...its all about politics and the libs are famous for turning American against American for a vote.

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

Now ask yourself two questions:'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and...'Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide) web as much as they do?'Ensure you do your homework before you place your vote.
*** An Anonymous person has commented and pointed out that the above stats comes from just one of the tables provided in the report and readers should look at the entire report to determine combat related stats as compared to non-combat totals. Additional info can be found in the comment section for the reader to determine on their own. Not everything passed around in e-mail is 100% accurate and readers should determine accuracy for themselves.***

7 comments:

RightsideVA said...

A "Anonymous" person commenting suggested looking at this info available at: According to Snopes, this information is false: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

Not sure of the accuracy of this "Snopes" site but it should be looked at by all interested....

Anonymous said...

I looked at the Snopes site and the CRS report itself, and it does seem to debunk the original numbers you quoted. However the ethinic distribution of deaths that you quote here seem to be correct looking at Table 15 of the CRS

Anonymous said...

THIS INFORMATION IF FALSE! GO TO THE PDF THEY DIRECT YOU TO AND AT THE TOP THE DOCUMENT ITSELF TELLS OF THIS DECEITFUL EMAIL!

RightsideVA said...

Yes and thanks for noting that there is now an additional page now before that report. I did not know that they had add that and it points out the problem with the way the facts were portrayed.

"A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that
facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of
cyberspace."

Some have called for the removal of the original post but I believe it better to leave it up, add the RED comments noting this data problem and directing the reader to this comment section where the issue can be discussed or viewed. Unfortunately e-mails are not 100% accurate and that problem will continue and is the beast of the internet. I do find this report a good source of data and numbers that the reader should view and decide for themselves.
Thanks for pointing out the addition of the first page to the report...

Barry Davis said...

I went to the fas.org link provided and looked at numbers.

This email posted on this blog is full of mathematical errors designed to sway the opinions and bolster the claim of 14,000 deaths during the Clinton Administration and to show that even while at war the Bush administration is showing fewer deaths. The opposite is true Clinton Administration had 7,500 deaths and the current Bush Administration has 10,734 deaths.

Posting erroneous information does more harm than good when pleading your case before the American people.

RightsideVA said...

I found it interesting how this same report can be read and viewed by many people in different ways. Several people have commented how the original e-mail "Spins" the numbers in the writers favor when others view the numbers completly opposite...

I decided to leave the email and post up after several people stated errors in the email and allow both sides to comment. I have not removed, prevented, or deleted any comments and this post is viewed often by many searching on this topic.

Barry Davis states above "The opposite is true Clinton Administration had 7,500 deaths and the current Bush Administration has 10,734 deaths."
which can be supported by the data.

The interesting thing is why were there so many deaths during the Clinton administration when he was doing little to prevent or respond to terrorist threats\attacks? The Bush administration has responded and went after the terrorist that Clinton often shook his finger at and promised action with delivering little...
What about that comparison?

Anonymous said...

The Bush administration has responded and went after the terrorist that Clinton often shook his finger at and promised action with delivering little...
What about that comparison?
...............................
The major difference is war in Iraq, with 4,000 deaths in Iraq.
10,734 - 4,000 = 6,734.

6,734 vs. 7,500 is about 10% difference...

Clinton (IMO) is a complete low life, but you can't blame him for everything...