U.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS - 1992 through 2004

[MonsterMark]

These are all combat and non-combat related deaths among ACTIVE-DUTY military personnel.

You can find this info on the D.O.D. site. It has been vetted.

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
2004 1,887

Still looking for the totals for 2005 and 2006.

Notice in the Clinton years we lost 8,035 people (1000/yr average) and we were NOT EVEN AT WAR.

No wonder BillyBoy would only bomb from 30,000 feet.
That's what gutting the military does for you. A lot of innocent guys dying from recklessness and whatnot.

Way to go Dems. Hitlary in 2008. Can't wait.

 

[fossten]

Gee, where were all the bleeding heart libs calling for "no more soldier deaths?" Where was the media with the constant counting and celebrating milestones like "2,000 DEAD" and "3,000 DEAD?" Where was Jack "I support the troops but not the mission" Murtha back then?

See, the Democrats don't care one bit about the troops. They only want to oppose Bush's policies. Period. If Clinton had gone into Iraq (an omission he secretly regrets, BTW) the Dems and media would be lauding and trumpeting this as a great accomplishment and a necessary thing to stick it out and finish the job. "We need to build a bridge to the middle east," Clinton would say. Of course the coward never would have had the ballz to take casualties in Iraq.

Bush doesn't go into Iraq, the Dems condemn him for not doing enough to answer their resolutions calling for action. Bush goes into Iraq, the Dems criticize him and call him a liar and a failure and accuse him of being a warmonger.

These are the most two-faced people I've ever seen, but I bet they were the same during Vietnam.

 

[Iancusp]

Gee, where were all the bleeding heart libs calling for "no more soldier deaths?" Where was the media with the constant counting and celebrating milestones like "2,000 DEAD" and "3,000 DEAD?" Where was Jack "I support the troops but not the mission" Murtha back then?

See, the Democrats don't care one bit about the troops. They only want to oppose Bush's policies. Period. If Clinton had gone into Iraq (an omission he secretly regrets, BTW) the Dems and media would be lauding and trumpeting this as a great accomplishment and a necessary thing to stick it out and finish the job. "We need to build a bridge to the middle east," Clinton would say. Of course the coward never would have had the ballz to take casualties in Iraq.
Bush doesn't go into Iraq, the Dems condemn him for not doing enough to answer their resolutions calling for action. Bush goes into Iraq, the Dems criticize him and call him a liar and a failure and accuse him of being a warmonger.

These are the most two-faced people I've ever seen, but I bet they were the same during Vietnam.

Is it really his balls on the line or the soldiers
its easier to tell somone to do somthing then to actually do it ...... right????

 

[fossten]

Is it really his balls on the line or the soldiers
its easier to tell somone to do somthing then to actually do it ...... right????

Wrong. Have you ever been in a position of authority? What's harder, following orders, or having to give orders knowing that people will die? Your premise is baloney because you don't know anything about Bush. To assume that he gets giddy over ordering soldiers to their deaths is disrespectful and ignorant.

A coward would avoid giving orders that would send people to their deaths despite the necessity.

 

[Marcus]

These are all combat and non-combat related deaths among ACTIVE-DUTY military personnel.

You can find this info on the D.O.D. site. It has been vetted.

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
2004 1,887

Still looking for the totals for 2005 and 2006.

Notice in the Clinton years we lost 8,035 people (1000/yr average) and we were NOT EVEN AT WAR.

No wonder BillyBoy would only bomb from 30,000 feet.
That's what gutting the military does for you. A lot of innocent guys dying from recklessness and whatnot.

Way to go Dems. Hitlary in 2008. Can't wait.

How convenient that you started the list at 1992. Once you go back to 1980, things look a little different. Casualties during Reagan are were twice what they were under Clinton, and they went down every year during Clinton.

Notice that the graph below actually narrows the casualties down to the reason of death. "Accidents" make up the vast majority of the numbers. Again, Reagan's numbers are twice to three times Clintons. Even "self-inflicted" numbers are, on average, higher for Reagan. So don't give us this crap about "recklessness and whatnot".

 

[fossten]

Even "self-inflicted" numbers are, on average, higher for Reagan. So don't give us this crap about "recklessness and whatnot".

Imagine how much higher they would have been if Kerry had served during the 80's.

Seriously, Tommy, you're really stretching here. Bryan's trying to make a point that Bush's so-called bloody war killing all our troops needlessly has been relatively bloodless, compared to Clinton and Reagan. He's made that point rather eloquently. So what is your point? That Reagan's military had more accidents than Clinton's? Big whoop, how does that fit in with this thread? It doesn't.

Go start your own thread before I bring up Truman's and FDR's casualty counts. They were both Democrats.

 

[MAC1]

How convenient that you started the list at 1992. Once you go back to 1980, things look a little different. Casualties during Reagan are were twice what they were under Clinton, and they went down every year during Clinton.

Notice that the graph below actually narrows the casualties down to the reason of death. "Accidents" make up the vast majority of the numbers. Again, Reagan's numbers are twice to three times Clintons. Even "self-inflicted" numbers are, on average, higher for Reagan. So don't give us this crap about "recklessness and whatnot".

You missed the point Tommy. The point is that it’s apparent that democrats were never as concerned about military casualties up until the Iraq War. It shows they are using military casualties as a political tool. I have no doubt that if there was no Iraq war, military casualties wouldn’t even be an issue—What do you think?

 

[TheDude]

I think you both missed Tommy's point... Both Clinton and Bush (considering Bush's not listed years follow the trend) have accidental, illness and suicide deaths on par with each other... The one thing that Bush has over Clinton is combat (Hostile Action) deaths; before you say "Duh, that's because we're in a war." that is the topic of discussion, are those military deaths worth the cause as accidents, sickness and craziness are bound to happen regardless of a war or not.

 

[MAC1]

I think you both missed Tommy's point... Both Clinton and Bush (considering Bush's not listed years follow the trend) have accidental, illness and suicide deaths on par with each other... The one thing that Bush has over Clinton is combat (Hostile Action) deaths; before you say "Duh, that's because we're in a war." that is the topic of discussion, are those military deaths worth the cause as accidents, sickness and craziness are bound to happen regardless of a war or not.

I beg to differ. If the democrats were truly concerned about military deaths as they claim to be today, then why didn’t they call for an investigation or merely take note of military deaths pre-2003. Again, it’s obvious that democrats don’t look at the numbers regarding military deaths, they simply look for an opportunity to exploit those numbers for political gain.

 

[TheDude]

I beg to differ. If the democrats were truly concerned about military deaths as they claim to be today, then why didn’t they call for an investigation or merely take note of military deaths pre-2001. Again, it’s obvious that democrats don’t look at the numbers regarding military deaths they simply look for an opportunity to exploit those numbers for political gain.

Because accidents, illness and suicides happen...

 

[MAC1]

Because accidents, illness and suicides happen...

Well, if that were the case then democrats would ignore military accidents in Iraq. But that's not the case, as they count every death for political gain. Come on Deville, are you trying to say that democrats aren't exploiting U.S. military causualties in Iraq?

 

[TheDude]

Well, if that were the case then democrats would ignore military accidents in Iraq. But that's not the case, as they count every death for political gain. Come on Deville, are you trying to say that democrats aren't exploiting U.S. military causualties in Iraq?

No, I'd be stupid to deny that this is politically driven; I just disagree that is the sole reason behind it and that Democrats "really don't care" about the deaths.

 

[Marcus]

You missed the point Tommy. The point is that it’s apparent that democrats were never as concerned about military casualties up until the Iraq War. It shows they are using military casualties as a political tool. I have no doubt that if there was no Iraq war, military casualties wouldn’t even be an issue—What do you think?

Of course it wouldn't be an issue if there were no Iraq war. Because there is a somewhat steady number of troops who die every year regardless of whether we're at war or not. That's an unfortunate fact. What is at issue is the number of troops who have died as a direct result of hostile action. As of today, that number is 2555, not including accidents and other reasons not related to combat. Monstermark is lumping all military deaths together, which gives a distorted picture of the true cost of the war.

He then snidely suggests that it was somehow Clinton's fault that we had 8000-plus deaths during his term. I was pointing out that fact that those non-combat deaths have been a sad fact of life since long before he came along, and that they were in fact lower than Reagan's non-combat deaths.

 

[MonsterMark]

:hump:

How convenient that you started the list at 1992. Once you go back to 1980, things look a little different. Casualties during Reagan are were twice what they were under Clinton, and they went down every year during Clinton.

Oh I agree. While Clinton was busy gutting the military, (btw, he had 5,000,000 less military personnel under his command during his reign of terror) and having everybody sit on their hands, of course one would expect fewer accidental casualties.

This was just a simple exercise to once again point out the hypocracy of the Left. Spin it all you want. You folks on the Left used the sacrifices of our brave military people in Iraq and Afganistan for your own selfish benefit. :bash:

I think this should be Fossten's new sig.

"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,”
David Geffen