About US Military Deaths over-all

Thorgrim · 12-10-2007, 05:18 AM

I noticed that in the past 10 days, only 5 soldiers were killed

Now, there is a trap even I briefly fell into before I researched it better:

In 1994/95/96 etc there were something around over 1,000 US military deaths a month...so it stands to reason that if the US death rate in Iraq were somehow put at .5 a day...there'd be only 183 military deaths a year

Wow, only 20% of what happened during peacetime? That's amazing, infact it's progress...you know...it must be medical progress...our medical teams are so good, in 2008 only some 200-300 (counting Afghanistan) might be killed

Well this is why they invented google:

In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you'll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration -- just 76 over an eight-year period -- were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.

These noncombat deaths have not simply stopped happening. There are still noncombat deaths going on in the military, and they are, for the most part, kept as a separate tally from the deaths in Iraq. (To be fair, some of the deaths -- about 16 percent -- that have occurred in Iraq are similarly not the result of hostile action.) The absolute number of deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq may not be astoundingly high, but they are still deaths entirely above and beyond those that would happen in the course of normal peacetime military business, and that's not something Colon factors into her argument at all. Military deaths have spiked upward from the final years of the Clinton administration. In 1999, there were 796 total military deaths; in 2000, there were 758; in 2003, there were 1,410; and in 2004, there were 1,887

.

So, 2004, when we had months where only 20 Americans were killed (February) or 42 (June)...the war was considered a huge failure...infact John Kerry was riding high on the polls...and pundits everywhere said it was because Bush gambled on Iraq and lost

Now US troop deaths are dropping...to levels where people were about to throw out Bush because even 20 or 42 was too much

But why?

Well because it get's reported in the News, but the news is NOT as bias as some would have you think, because NONE of them have reported the ACTUAL number of US military deaths that could have scared Americans even more about the war...they do stick to the facts "42 americans were killed in Iraq this month" they never went "42 americans were killed in Iraq this month, and 60 more were killed in regular peacetime bases due to accidents/etc...,making it a triple digit month for US troop deaths at 102"

In 2004, 849 Americans were killed in Iraq...this was huge news...but why, if 758 were killed during Clinton's last year?

Because 849 Americans were killed IN IRAQ in 2004, but 1,038 American soldiers were killed in 2004 OUTSIDE OF IRAQ, for a total 2004 US death toll of 1,887

So we have a baseline number...even with improving medical technology, the US military will have about 700-900 deaths, no matter what...but Iraq ADDS ON TO THAT...no matter how long the numbers go...no matter if we get to two soldiers killed in Iraq a month...that is still one more than we would if we were home...because if you average it out, even adding in the Somalia crisis and Kosovo, barely 1 American died every month from hostile causes in Clinton's administration

Also, its basic logic that Iraq is logistically more difficult, requires more advances training in Iraq, etc...basically there is more likely a chance for accidents in Iraq, therefor even if hostilities stopped, we'll still have additional troop deaths just by MERELY BEING THERE

Ofcourse this all ignores the enormous cost...strain on our military structure...strain on military families

Why haven't Democrats brought this up?
1) This is a tab morbid
2) Even hearing that troop deaths are dropping, NBC News (which declared Iraq in a civil war) has been consistent in reporting improving conditions in parts of Iraq...yet the American Public, even in pro-war bias questions to Americans...the public is anti-iraq war and wants to come home within a year by about a 60% majority...the numbers simply aren't moving...why mess with good numbers?

It's part of the same reason they aren't getting into huge fights with Bush over funding, they aren't going to risk a REAL loss...voters aren't going to vote for the GOP to punish the Dems for not being anti-war enough, but they will vote GOP if the Dems look week on national security

I know this posts goes many places at once, but it centers around one fact:

Next time you hear Sean Hannity talk about how troop deaths were higher under Clinton than they are now in Iraq under Bush, they are LYING and they couldn't even DO A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH or simply ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

thatguyoverthere · 12-10-2007, 10:19 AM

Good post.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

...voters aren't going to vote for the GOP to punish the Dems for not being anti-war enough, but they will vote GOP if the Dems look weak on national security

Very true, and it seems to always end up like a dog chasing its own tail. Democrats don't want to appear weak, so they end up following the GOP's tough guy lead. Democrats vote for war, Democratic leaders approve of torture techniques, Democrats continue funding war... and of course even after all of this, "conservatives" will still blather on and on that the problem with the Democrats is that they keep playing to their left-wing base!

What BULLSHIT! I pray for the day when Democrats cater to their left wing base! Instead, they do what they ALWAYS seem to do: let the GOP lead them around by the nose. Maybe if the Democrats in power had the courage of their convictions, or bothered to listen to their left wing base at all, they would have higher approval ratings. Instead, we get Republican Lite.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Next time you hear Sean Hannity talk about how troop deaths were higher under Clinton than they are now in Iraq under Bush, they are LYING and they couldn't even DO A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH or simply ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

All these guys rely on the fact that people don't know the real facts, or have some sort of gap in their knowledge. The liars tell a lie that SOUNDS true, and that you'd never determine was a lie until you saw the whole picture.

Thorgrim · 12-10-2007, 03:38 PM

Thanks

Also, to further the talk about Democrats in Congress...realize that on the night of 2006, the "objective" people at Fox News went "in 2008, we're going to have a huge asset in being able to talk to the american people about SPEAKER PELOSI" and they all laughed as if Americans would never accept such a wacky socialist House that would pay the most outrageous things, completely out of touch with America, etc...

They had a good thing to hope for...Nancy Pelosi using all her electoral strength to push for transgender benefits or something (I'm for it ofcourse, but I'm practical) but it never happened...the "big liberal agenda" never came up

What did go through? Trying to get a phased withdrawal of Iraq, successfully passing minimum wage hikes, 9/11 commission recommendations, college tuition reduction (of loan rates), and other popular measures

The "liberal house/congress" never happened, and that's why the GOP is only getting 35% on the future's market while the Dems are over 60%...for taking the White House in 2008