PDA

View Full Version : Bad News for Liberals: Military Deaths Lower than some years of "Peace"



darin
11-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Come ON now...how can libs rant and rave that "Bush Sends our kids to DIE" when sometimes MORE soldiers die in peacetime than today.



More active members of the military died during two years of peacetime in the early 1980s than died during a two-year period of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a government report.

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."

FOXNews.com, in re-examining the findings, found that — surprising as it may be — there were more active duty deaths in some years of peacetime than there were in some years of wartime.

Military analysts say the current decrease in military casualties, even during a time of war, is due to a campaign by the Armed Forces to reduce accidents and improve medical care on the battlefield.

"It's safer to be in the military because your accidental death rate has gone down; it's safer to be in the military because if you get wounded, you'll probably survive," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.

"Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

According to the raw figures, of the 2,380 members of the military who died during active duty in 1981, 1,524 were killed in accidents, 145 by homicide, 457 by illness and 241 from self-inflicted wounds. That compares with the 1,942 killed in 2005; of that number, 632 died from accidents, 739 from hostile action, 49 from homicide, 281 from illness, 150 from self-inflicted wounds and 72 whose causes of death were still pending. Eleven deaths in ’81 and 19 deaths in ’05 were classified as “undetermined.”

More at link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html





[edit] Notes:

Total Military Deaths, by year - since 1992

1992: 1,293
1993: 1,213
1994: 1,075
1995: 1,040
1996: 974
1997: 817
1998: 827
1999: 796

Total: 8032

Total deaths from Hostile Action since 2001:
2001: 3
2002: 18
2003: 344
2004: 739
2005: 739
2006: 753
2007: Unknown tally

Total: 2596+

Pale Rider
11-14-2007, 12:30 PM
Tell me about it... I was deployed to Lebanon in '82 with my fighter wing, and wound up with two pieces of RPG in my right lung. Peace time. Right.

hjmick
11-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Great, now we get to hear how it was all Reagan's fault.

I came across this story earlier this morning and found it very informative. Funny thing, the report hasn't hit the news agencies elsewhere.

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 12:54 PM
You are mixing apples and oranges here.

To be fair about this you would have to look at the total of all U.S. Military deaths whether combat related or not for each year 2001-7 . I'm sure there have been casualties that were not related to the war.

According to the information you provided, there were an average of 1004 deaths in the years from 1992-9. If those numbers hold true, you'd have to add 1000 deaths to each year from 2001-7 and where would that put your numbers?

Immie

darin
11-14-2007, 12:58 PM
You are mixing apples and oranges here.

To be fair about this you would have to look at the total of all U.S. Military deaths whether combat related or not for each year 2001-7 . I'm sure there have been casualties that were not related to the war.

According to the information you provided, there were an average of 1004 deaths in the years from 1992-9. If those numbers hold true, you'd have to add 1000 deaths to each year from 2001-7 and where would that put your numbers?

Immie

Uh? What?

In the same span listed, about 8700 folk died. 2600 of those died from Hostile Action. Pretty clear, IMO.

Serving in the military can lead to one's death. War does not seem to be a primary cause, however. Over the past few years equal numbers of "accidents" have lead to death of our Military folk, as have 'hostile action'.

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 01:10 PM
Uh? What?

In the same span listed, about 8700 folk died. 2600 of those died from Hostile Action. Pretty clear, IMO.

Serving in the military can lead to one's death. War does not seem to be a primary cause, however. Over the past few years equal numbers of "accidents" have lead to death of our Military folk, as have 'hostile action'.

Uh, these numbers are misleading.




Total Military Deaths, by year - since 1992

1992: 1,293
1993: 1,213
1994: 1,075
1995: 1,040
1996: 974
1997: 817
1998: 827
1999: 796

Total: 8032

Total deaths from Hostile Action since 2001:
2001: 3
2002: 18
2003: 344
2004: 739
2005: 739
2006: 753
2007: Unknown tally

You are only counting some of the death from 2001-7. You leave out all deaths that were not related to combat. I'm sure you are trying to be honest here, but the government is spinning.

For instance take a look at 2005, you show 739 deaths while the report actually shows 1942 buried deep in the report. They are playing games with the numbers. They expect us to look at the data and see a higher death count in the 90's and think, oh! things aren't as bad as we were told. However, if they showed apples to apples and showed 1942 deaths in '05 comparing them to the 90's we'd see that the death toll was actually significantly higher in '05 compared to any year in the 90's.

Just governmental spin.

Immie

Abbey
11-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Come ON now...how can libs rant and rave that "Bush Sends our kids to DIE" when sometimes MORE soldiers die in peacetime than today.




[edit] Notes:

Total Military Deaths, by year - since 1992

1992: 1,293
1993: 1,213
1994: 1,075
1995: 1,040
1996: 974
1997: 817
1998: 827
1999: 796

Total: 8032

Total deaths from Hostile Action since 2001:
2001: 3
2002: 18
2003: 344
2004: 739
2005: 739
2006: 753
2007: Unknown tally

Total: 2596+


There were more murders in Philly so far this year, than there were military deaths in 2001, 2002 & 2003 combined.

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 03:56 PM
There were more murders in Philly so far this year, than there were military deaths in 2001, 2002 & 2003 combined.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ;)

Immie

darin
11-14-2007, 03:58 PM
Uh, these numbers are misleading.



You are only counting some of the death from 2001-7. You leave out all deaths that were not related to combat. I'm sure you are trying to be honest here, but the government is spinning.


Absolutely I did - but I indicated what the TOTAL deaths were: 87xx. The Point is "More of our Military Died during 8 years of PEACE than during combat operations with an armed enemy."



For instance take a look at 2005, you show 739 deaths while the report actually shows 1942 buried deep in the report. They are playing games with the numbers. They expect us to look at the data and see a higher death count in the 90's and think, oh! things aren't as bad as we were told. However, if they showed apples to apples and showed 1942 deaths in '05 comparing them to the 90's we'd see that the death toll was actually significantly higher in '05 compared to any year in the 90's.

Just governmental spin.

Immie

Nobody is playing games with the data - it's comparative data. I pulled those data points. Read the .pdf for all the numbers. The numbers shown show the risk of Death by serving your country - it shows over, say, a 20 year career, the average soldier is more likely to die from an accident than from a war.

Hagbard Celine
11-14-2007, 03:58 PM
Is the number of soldiers who come back missing arms, legs and brain lobes higher or lower now or in peace time? :poke:

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 04:00 PM
Absolutely I did - but I indicated what the TOTAL deaths were: 87xx. The Point is "More of our Military Died during 8 years of PEACE than during combat operations with an armed enemy."



Nobody is playing games with the data - it's comparative data. I pulled those data points. Read the .pdf for all the numbers. The numbers shown show the risk of Death by serving your country - it shows over, say, a 20 year career, the average soldier is more likely to die from an accident than from a war.

Oh, come on dmp, you don't expect me to buy that do you? The government is in extensive spin mode here playing numbers games trying to make things look better than they are and unfortunately most of America will buy it.

Immie

darin
11-14-2007, 04:06 PM
Oh, come on dmp, you don't expect me to buy that do you? The government is in extensive spin mode here playing numbers games trying to make things look better than they are and unfortunately most of America will buy it.

Immie

uh - dude? You didn't read the report, did you. You're talking out of your ass a little bit. The report show ALL causes of death among our military.

dmp pulled from the report specific numbers to make a point. That point is this: Our military face MANY risks of death during their service. Death from Hostile Action doesn't seem to be the primary risk.

The problem you may be having is this: How can you beat the drum of "Bush is killing our kids!" when faced with data showing they were just as likely, or even slightly MORE likely to die during Peacetime?

We hear daily how many lives this war has cost the US of A. A secondary point is this: Having ANY military costs our country the lives of some of it's youth. It's sad. But it's reality.

perhaps that's why mature folk HONOR veterans - those who have faced those statistics and those risks, and have lived to tell the tale?

theHawk
11-14-2007, 04:08 PM
How about comparing those numbers to the number of deaths by car accidents in the US.

hjmick
11-14-2007, 04:10 PM
How about comparing those numbers to the number of deaths by car accidents in the US.

Crap, don't do that. They'll want to ban driving and withdrawl all automobiles from the U.S.

Abbey
11-14-2007, 04:10 PM
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Immie


You really don't see it? Let's try again: Soldiers sign up for duty knowing that their lives could be in danger. Civilians do not. Yet those civilians died in larger numbers than the military in the years I cited. On which group's deaths should compassionate libs be focusing first?

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 04:14 PM
Is the number of soldiers who come back missing arms, legs and brain lobes higher or lower now or in peace time? :poke:

War is never good, though sometimes there isn't a choice. Luckily for those serving, they did have a choice. I'm not saying that conscription is wrong, but it's not the same as a volunteer service.

JohnDoe
11-14-2007, 06:13 PM
The numbers mean nothing here because apples are being compared with oranges.

And yes I read the report.

You are comparing total military deaths vs hostile military deaths and are not comparing it with total military deaths from 2001 onward.

It is deceiving and it is not a comparison of any sort...because comparisons are comparable, using the SAME criteria for both.



Total Military Deaths are in the right hand column, per year and this is from the report you linked.

1990 2,046,806 74,250 137,268 2,258,324 1,507
1991 1,943,937 70,250 184,002 2,198,189 1,787
1992 1,773,996 67,850 111,491 1,953,337 1,293
1993 1,675,269 68,500 105,768 1,849,537 1,213
1994 1,581,649 65,000 99,833 1,746,482 1,075
1995 1,502,343 65,000 94,585 1,661,928 1,040
1996 1,456,266 65,000 92,409 1,613,310 974
1997 1,418,773 65,000 94,609 1,578,382 817
1998 1,381,034 65,000 92,536 1,538,570 827
1999 1,367,838 65,000 93,104 1,525,942 796
2000 1,372,352 65,000 93,078 1,530,430 758
2001 1,384,812 65,000 102,284 1,552,196 891
2002 1,411,200 66,000 149,942 1,627,142 999
2003 1,423,348 66,000 243,284 1,732,632 1,228
2004 1,411,287 66,000 234,629 1,711,916 1,874
2005 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,942
2006 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,858

One also has to compare how many men were in the Military at the time, (how many were available to be killed or die) and calculate a comparison of this, to know the true figures.

How many military people there each year is in column 1.

For example, in 2005, 1942 military personel were killed/died out of 1,378,014 WHICH is 0.14%.

And in 1991 as example, 1778 military personel were killed/died out of 1,943,937 WHICH is 0.09%.

jd

retiredman
11-14-2007, 06:30 PM
Come ON now...how can libs rant and rave that "Bush Sends our kids to DIE" when sometimes MORE soldiers die in peacetime than today.

it is nothing but intentionally insulting and inflammatory rhetoric to suggest that liberals would find fewer American military deaths "bad news".

Republicans like dmp want to spit on our patriotism and then expect us to work with them when we take the reins of power? I think not.:fu:

retiredman
11-14-2007, 06:33 PM
The numbers mean nothing here because apples are being compared with oranges.

And yes I read the report.

You are comparing total military deaths vs hostile military deaths and are not comparing it with total military deaths from 2001 onward.

It is deceiving and it is not a comparison of any sort...because comparisons are comparable, using the SAME criteria for both.



Total Military Deaths are in the right hand column, per year and this is from the report you linked.

1990 2,046,806 74,250 137,268 2,258,324 1,507
1991 1,943,937 70,250 184,002 2,198,189 1,787
1992 1,773,996 67,850 111,491 1,953,337 1,293
1993 1,675,269 68,500 105,768 1,849,537 1,213
1994 1,581,649 65,000 99,833 1,746,482 1,075
1995 1,502,343 65,000 94,585 1,661,928 1,040
1996 1,456,266 65,000 92,409 1,613,310 974
1997 1,418,773 65,000 94,609 1,578,382 817
1998 1,381,034 65,000 92,536 1,538,570 827
1999 1,367,838 65,000 93,104 1,525,942 796
2000 1,372,352 65,000 93,078 1,530,430 758
2001 1,384,812 65,000 102,284 1,552,196 891
2002 1,411,200 66,000 149,942 1,627,142 999
2003 1,423,348 66,000 243,284 1,732,632 1,228
2004 1,411,287 66,000 234,629 1,711,916 1,874
2005 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,942
2006 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,858

One also has to compare how many men were in the Military at the time, (how many were available to be killed or die) and calculate a comparison of this, to know the true figures.

How many military people there were each year is in column 1.

For example, in 2005, 1942 military personel were killed/died out of 1,378,014 WHICH is 0.14%.

And in 1991 as example, 1778 military personel were killed/died out of 1,943,937 WHICH is 0.09%.

jd

well done, JD....

I am sure dmp's nether quarters are sore after having those numbers unceremoniously thrust there!:clap:

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 06:36 PM
it is nothing but intentionally insulting and inflammatory rhetoric to suggest that liberals would find fewer American military deaths "bad news".

Republicans like dmp want to spit on our patriotism and then expect us to work with them when we take the reins of power? I think not.:fu:

Of course you wouldn't want to work with 'us', as we aren't really Americans, right? You only support Americans.

My guess is that most of your time in military was peacetime. You KNOW that even then, too many are killed by accidents and what have you. You also know that the medical care is not at the same level as in war time, meaning there are likely casualties that wouldn't be, in war time.

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 06:48 PM
The problem you may be having is this: How can you beat the drum of "Bush is killing our kids!" when faced with data showing they were just as likely, or even slightly MORE likely to die during Peacetime?

First off, I don't beat that drum. I have never said a thing about Bush killing our soldiers. This is a war. I believe the President and our military leaders screwed up bigtime, but that is besides the point. I have said it three or four times since I came to dp.com. I believe that they screwed up by pinning our soldiers in a corale, painting targets on their backs and letting them become targets for the terrorists. They screwed up. There has got to be a better solution to fighting this war than that, even a 12 year old would be smart enough to know that it would be a mistake to bottle up your forces in one location for the enemy to pick off one by one.

Second, They are not more likely to die in times of peace than they are in wars! That has got to be coming out of your rectum not out of your head! Face it, there could be hundreds of reasons why those number fell during those two decades, but going to war is not, I repeat, not one of them.


perhaps that's why mature folk HONOR veterans - those who have faced those statistics and those risks, and have lived to tell the tale?

Honor our veterans? You have got to be kidding! Honor them by sitting there and claiming that they were more likely to die in an accident on the highways of America than they were in Iraq? I'm sorry, but that almost sounds like you are trivializing the deaths and sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq since 2001. I see no honor in that.

I respect everyone of those brave soldiers that went to Iraq and have given up their lives for me, and for the honor of my country. They have died, some in horrendous ways, yet most of them knew what they were risking by being there and everyone of them volunteered to be there.

No, I honor their sacrifices. What I do not honor is the imbecilic way they have been sent there.

Forgive me when I say this but George W. Bush screw up big this time. I do not fault him for making the mistake. We all make them. I do, however, fault him for leaving those soldiers there because of his own pride rather than reassessing the situation and deploying our forces in ways that will actually accomplish something in the War on Terrorism.

Immie

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 06:55 PM
You really don't see it? Let's try again: Soldiers sign up for duty knowing that their lives could be in danger. Civilians do not. Yet those civilians died in larger numbers than the military in the years I cited. On which group's deaths should compassionate libs be focusing first?

No Abbey, I don't see it and I sure as heck don't care about what the liberals should be focusing on.

These are two different things. We've got soldiers dieing whose deaths could be minnimized if an intelligent plan were put in place.

I'm sorry, but the murder count in Philly for those three years, by the way, the first one was only a partial year, if I am not mistaken, really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I am sure we can focus on more than one problem, including the murder rate in Philadelpha at the same time as we concentrate on the death rate of our soldiers in Iraq.

I mean look at our Congress... they concentrate on all of our problems daily. They never solve anything but they think about how they are going to screw us out of taxes, how they are going to soak the lobbiest out of more money and how they are going to get votes in the next election all in one breath.

Immie

darin
11-14-2007, 06:57 PM
Face it, there could be hundreds of reasons why those number fell during those two decades, but going to war is not, I repeat, not one of them.


The numbers DIDN'T FALL...they actually ROSE some.

TOTAL killed 87xx...of those, 2500 were from Hostile Actions. www.rif.org



Honor our veterans? You have got to be kidding! Honor them by sitting there and claiming that they were more likely to die in an accident on the highways of America than they were in Iraq? I'm sorry, but that almost sounds like you are trivializing the deaths and sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq since 2001. I see no honor in that.


Dude - you need to breath.

Here's what I mean...as basic as I can make it:

"Our society tends to HONOR and RESPECT Veterans for the sacrifices they've made, not the least of which was doing a job where risk of death increases."

Have a problem with that speculation?


I respect everyone of those brave soldiers that went to Iraq and have given up their lives for me, and for the honor of my country. They have died, some in horrendous ways, yet most of them knew what they were risking by being there and everyone of them volunteered to be there.

No, I honor their sacrifices. What I do not honor is the imbecilic way they have been sent there.

Forgive me when I say this but George W. Bush screw up big this time. I do not fault him for making the mistake. We all make them. I do, however, fault him for leaving those soldiers there because of his own pride rather than reassessing the situation and deploying our forces in ways that will actually accomplish something in the War on Terrorism.

Immie

Okay then...whatever...you're crazy. :)

manu1959
11-14-2007, 06:59 PM
Forgive me when I say this but George W. Bush screw up big this time. I do not fault him for making the mistake. We all make them. I do, however, fault him for leaving those soldiers there because of his own pride rather than reassessing the situation and deploying our forces in ways that will actually accomplish something in the War on Terrorism.
Immie

such as...........

JohnDoe
11-14-2007, 07:02 PM
And Abbey, there were 406 murders out of 1,448,394 population in 2006, this is a rate of 0.02%.

The only way to get a comparable rate fo the soldiers in Iraq is to know how many soldiers were in Iraq and how many of those soldiers in Iraq were killed via murder or hostile actions, and those figures are not available.

I could guess that we have had on average about 150,000 troops in Iraq, and take the hostile deaths in Iraq for 2006 and devide it by the 150k average.

For Example, in 2006 there were 753 hostile deaths of soldiers, (and it does not distinguish how many of those were in Iraq but I suppose we could presume that MOST of them were in Iraq). If we take the 753 and divide it by the 150,000 estimate of soldiers there, it would be 0.50%.

A much, much greater chance of a soldier getting killed in Iraq than in Philadelphia, our HIGHEST murder rate city in the USA.

manu1959
11-14-2007, 07:07 PM
And Abbey, there were 406 murders out of 1,448,394 population in 2006, this is a rate of 0.02%.

The only way to get a comparable rate fo the soldiers in Iraq is to know how many soldiers were in Iraq and how many of those soldiers in Iraq were killed via murder or hostile actions, and those figures are not available.

I could guess that we have had on average about 150,000 troops in Iraq, and take the hostile deaths in Iraq for 2006 and devide it by the 150k average.

For Example, in 2006 there were 753 hostile deaths of soldiers, (and it does not distinguish how many of those were in Iraq but I suppose we could presume that MOST of them were in Iraq). If we take the 753 and divide it by the 150,000 estimate of soldiers there, it would be 0.50%.

A much, much greater chance of a soldier getting killed in Iraq than in Philadelphia, our HIGHEST murder rate city in the USA.


from the article:

That compares with the 1,942 killed in 2005; of that number, 632 died from accidents, 739 from hostile action, 49 from homicide, 281 from illness, 150 from self-inflicted wounds and 72 whose causes of death were still pending. Eleven deaths in ’81 and 19 deaths in ’05 were classified as “undetermined.”

JohnDoe
11-14-2007, 07:11 PM
from the article:

That compares with the 1,942 killed in 2005; of that number, 632 died from accidents, 739 from hostile action, 49 from homicide, 281 from illness, 150 from self-inflicted wounds and 72 whose causes of death were still pending. Eleven deaths in ’81 and 19 deaths in ’05 were classified as “undetermined.”

I wonder what murders are verses hostile actions? Do you know? There is no hostile actions killings documented for Philadelphia?

manu1959
11-14-2007, 07:13 PM
I wonder what murders are verses hostile actions? Do you know? There is no hostile actions killings documented for Philadelphia?

hostile action is fighting the war.....combat deaths

JohnDoe
11-14-2007, 07:17 PM
Our guys are in grave danger In Iraq and to imply that they are in no more greater danger in a war and warzone than any other time or in any big city in the USA, is a complete slap in our soldier's faces and makes it as though they are sacraficing NOTHING for us, the usa citizen, don't you think?

JohnDoe
11-14-2007, 07:17 PM
hostile action is fighting the war.....combat deaths What are the murders then? Are these murders in Iraq?

manu1959
11-14-2007, 07:21 PM
What are the murders then? Are these murders in Iraq?

murdered military while on active duty...doesn't say where or by whom....but not in combat

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 07:31 PM
such as...........

I've already said it several times. We have intelligence services. We have a military that can be anywhere on the globe in a matter of hours. Put our intelligence services to work and the minute one of those coc... er SOB's, stick their heads up out of the sand, take them down.

I realize your answer to that is, "why haven't they found OBL?". I'd have to say, because they ain't looking.

Immie

retiredman
11-14-2007, 07:40 PM
Of course you wouldn't want to work with 'us', as we aren't really Americans, right? You only support Americans.

My guess is that most of your time in military was peacetime. You KNOW that even then, too many are killed by accidents and what have you. You also know that the medical care is not at the same level as in war time, meaning there are likely casualties that wouldn't be, in war time.

I know all of that. I am not suggesting anything about military mortality rates one way or the other. What I am suggesting is that people who would insult liberals and spit on our patriotism by posting that we would find fewer military deaths to be "bad news" don't deserve any kindness or cooperation from a democratic majority.

btw...My time in the military was 1968-1993... lots of peacetime...lots of cold war time.... a bit or hot war time in those years.

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 08:01 PM
I know all of that. I am not suggesting anything about military mortality rates one way or the other. What I am suggesting is that people who would insult liberals and spit on our patriotism by posting that we would find fewer military deaths to be "bad news" don't deserve any kindness or cooperation from a democratic majority.

btw...My time in the military was 1968-1993... lots of peacetime...lots of cold war time.... a bit or hot war time in those years.

Fair enough. I doubt I qualify as someone who spits on the patriotism of others. On the other hand, I've been around for war time/peace time cold war too. So I ask you, with most of your military time being at 'peace' during the Cold War, do you disagree with the dangers present even then to those that serve. Reminds me, what are the rates of death for those working on docks at ports or transportation?

retiredman
11-14-2007, 08:07 PM
Fair enough. I doubt I qualify as someone who spits on the patriotism of others. On the other hand, I've been around for war time/peace time cold war too. So I ask you, with most of your military time being at 'peace' during the Cold War, do you disagree with the dangers present even then to those that serve. Reminds me, what are the rates of death for those working on docks at ports or transportation?

I have personally watched an H-46 nosedive off the helo deck of an oiler and lose all but one crewmember... searched in vain for five sailors washed over the side in rough seas.... searched the seas at night for any signs of perhaps a dozen or more pilots downed... not to mention at least that many sailors electrocuted. The military is fairly hazardous in the best of times.

and of course you don't qualify as someone like that.... the author of this thread certainly does, however. I hope he reaps the whirlwind.

p.s. and the helo crash happened in the Indian Ocean on a moonless night when the oiler I was on was transiting TO Diego Garcia and met up with a fast frigate transiting to the arabian sea FROM Diego Garcia and their CO asked if we could quickly vertrep a pallet of sodas over to them as the supply depot at Diego Garcia had been out....so we launched the helo and it immediately crashed.... four lives lost just for a pallet of soda.

glockmail
11-14-2007, 08:10 PM
More active members of the military died during two years of peacetime in the early 1980s than died during a two-year period of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a government report.

I can see Immie and jd's point, but they are suggesting that the government was intentionally misleading is incorrect. The sentence above is simple, plain english.

It appears that our these posters claim that they have been misled, when it may be a simple matter of poor reading comprehension.

glockmail
11-14-2007, 08:15 PM
.... What I am suggesting is that people who would insult liberals and spit on our patriotism by posting that we would find fewer military deaths to be "bad news" don't deserve any kindness or cooperation from a democratic majority.

.....

1. A Democrat has already been caught on tape equating good news in the war as bad news for them. Party above country; soldiers be damned.
2. The only time I've been disappointed in or Repubican officials is when they expect "nice" from elected Democrats. More often than not they get the "nice" shoved up thier asses; Lucy and The Football.

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 08:46 PM
I have personally watched an H-46 nosedive off the helo deck of an oiler and lose all but one crewmember... searched in vain for five sailors washed over the side in rough seas.... searched the seas at night for any signs of perhaps a dozen or more pilots downed... not to mention at least that many sailors electrocuted. The military is fairly hazardous in the best of times.

and of course you don't qualify as someone like that.... the author of this thread certainly does, however. I hope he reaps the whirlwind.

p.s. and the helo crash happened in the Indian Ocean on a moonless night when the oiler I was on was transiting TO Diego Garcia and met up with a fast frigate transiting to the arabian sea FROM Diego Garcia and their CO asked if we could quickly vertrep a pallet of sodas over to them as the supply depot at Diego Garcia had been out....so we launched the helo and it immediately crashed.... four lives lost just for a pallet of soda.

You make my point and that of the study. In the 'best of times' the military duty is very dangerous. Given the tasks, the calls for disasters, the practices or what they call them. All lead to possibilities of death. Given that, which is multiplied in war conditions, it should be accounted for.

retiredman
11-14-2007, 08:55 PM
You make my point and that of the study. In the 'best of times' the military duty is very dangerous. Given the tasks, the calls for disasters, the practices or what they call them. All lead to possibilities of death. Given that, which is multiplied in war conditions, it should be accounted for.

as I said earlier.... I am not disagreeing with any of the study. I am only disagreeing with people so filled with partisan hatred that they would accuse their avaerage democratic fellow americans of thinking less military deaths was bad news.

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 09:02 PM
as I said earlier.... I am not disagreeing with any of the study. I am only disagreeing with people so filled with partisan hatred that they would accuse their avaerage democratic fellow americans of thinking less military deaths was bad news.

Hey the partisan of either of us is not me. ;) I know you will agree with that.

retiredman
11-14-2007, 09:15 PM
Hey the partisan of either of us is not me. ;) I know you will agree with that.


absolutely, but even I would not accuse republicans of reveling in the death of American soldiers!

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 09:16 PM
absolutely, but even I would not accuse republicans of reveling in the death of American soldiers!

I hope I didn't. Did I?

retiredman
11-14-2007, 09:18 PM
I hope I didn't. Did I?

of course not....you are a saint. My ire is directed at this thread's incendiary author...no one else.

glockmail
11-14-2007, 09:33 PM
of course not....you are a saint. My ire is directed at this thread's incendiary author...no one else.Your feigned ire is based on your poor reading comprehension.

Kathianne
11-14-2007, 09:34 PM
of course not....you are a saint. My ire is directed at this thread's incendiary author...no one else.

A saint, kiss! :laugh2:

Pale Rider
11-14-2007, 10:36 PM
You really don't see it? Let's try again: Soldiers sign up for duty knowing that their lives could be in danger. Civilians do not. Yet those civilians died in larger numbers than the military in the years I cited. On which group's deaths should compassionate libs be focusing first?

OH, OH... I KNOW, I KNOW.... :wink2:

gabosaurus
11-14-2007, 11:04 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html

That is all I need to read about the slant of this story. I know what the angle is going to be.

So tell me, how does the number of American soldiers sent overseas to get their heads blown off in the last four years or so compare to 10 years ago?

actsnoblemartin
11-14-2007, 11:36 PM
excellent thread. Good news is bad news for the kooks.


Come ON now...how can libs rant and rave that "Bush Sends our kids to DIE" when sometimes MORE soldiers die in peacetime than today.




[edit] Notes:

Total Military Deaths, by year - since 1992

1992: 1,293
1993: 1,213
1994: 1,075
1995: 1,040
1996: 974
1997: 817
1998: 827
1999: 796

Total: 8032

Total deaths from Hostile Action since 2001:
2001: 3
2002: 18
2003: 344
2004: 739
2005: 739
2006: 753
2007: Unknown tally

Total: 2596+

Immanuel
11-14-2007, 11:57 PM
I can see Immie and jd's point, but they are suggesting that the government was intentionally misleading is incorrect. The sentence above is simple, plain english.

It appears that our these posters claim that they have been misled, when it may be a simple matter of poor reading comprehension.

Oh, I think you are completely wrong.

I think the government is playing number games. If they weren't they would have shown numbers that were comparable rather than throw in numbers that don't apply against each other. The government knows that when people look at these kind of reports they look for the bottom line and the heck with the rest. In this case, they look at the comparison... "wow, only 739 soldiers died in '05 compared to..."

Anyway the government knows this just like pollsters know it. A good pollster can take a poll at an Operation Rescue Meeting and make it sound like 98% of Americans are for Abortion on demand.

Yes, I'm sure they are attempting to spin this one. I've no doubt about it.

Immie

manu1959
11-15-2007, 12:04 AM
Oh, I think you are completely wrong.

I think the government is playing number games. If they weren't they would have shown numbers that were comparable rather than throw in numbers that don't apply against each other. The government knows that when people look at these kind of reports they look for the bottom line and the heck with the rest. In this case, they look at the comparison... "wow, only 739 soldiers died in '05 compared to..."

Anyway the government knows this just like pollsters know it. A good pollster can take a poll at an Operation Rescue Meeting and make it sound like 98% of Americans are for Abortion on demand.

Yes, I'm sure they are attempting to spin this one. I've no doubt about it.

Immie


if they were intentionally trying to mislead then the would not have labeled the charts they way they did......they would have simply labeled them military deaths.....

JohnDoe
11-15-2007, 06:44 AM
There is NOTHING being compared on the 2 charts from the initial thread post?

I suppose our American stupidity in Mathematics is allowing for people to THINK something is being "compared" here, but surely there are some of you on this site that can count on their own high school mathematics to shoot this comparison down?

I am amazed and shocked to tell ya the truth that anyone would think that you can compare apples with lemmons.


Could someone please explain to me what dmp's first thread is "comparing"?

jimminnee Christmas! yet people come on to this thread and try to argue that these figures are actually telling us something or that (Oh my God) "Liberals" are going to just hate what this comparison tells us, or that this is some kind of good news? What utter bulloney to the highest degree!

And yes, shame on you for not knowing what 2 + 2 is.....

I still can't believe that any of you right wingers aren't saying that this initial chart that dmp pulled out COMPARES NOTHING????

STILL SHAKING MY HEAD....damn! Please, go back to school and take a simple math course and a course on logic too!

Or speak up and tell the truth about this nonsensical thread.

jd

PostmodernProphet
11-15-2007, 06:56 AM
I think the government is playing number games.

the government isn't playing anything.....the government keeps track of statistics....the government is not the one who chose to present those two particular statistics in correlation to each other....

however, the original post does err in trying to make the correlation it did.....as has been pointed out that correlation tells us nothing about the impact of the Iraq war and it's a bit silly to pretend it does......


Or speak up and tell the truth about this nonsensical thread.

will that do?

JohnDoe
11-15-2007, 07:04 AM
the government isn't playing anything.....the government keeps track of statistics....the government is not the one who chose to present those two particular statistics in correlation to each other....

however, the original post does err in trying to make the correlation it did.....as has been pointed out that correlation tells us nothing about the impact of the Iraq war and it's a bit silly to pretend it does......



will that do?

YES!!! THANK YOU PMP!!! thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I thought I was losing my mind that this could not be seen by the everyday Joe....

jd

PostmodernProphet
11-15-2007, 07:12 AM
YES!!! THANK YOU PMP!!! thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I thought I was losing my mind that this could not be seen by the everyday Joe....

jd

????....who are you calling an everyday Joe.....I am ENLIGHTENED!.....:)

JohnDoe
11-15-2007, 07:17 AM
????....who are you calling an everyday Joe.....I am ENLIGHTENED!.....:)

YES, you ARE!!!!! I apologize!!! :laugh2:

:clap:

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 07:54 AM
if they were intentionally trying to mislead then the would not have labeled the charts they way they did......they would have simply labeled them military deaths.....

No, they would not, manu. If they had done that someone would have done the research and they would have had to explain the the obvious lies. This Administration is already accused of being dishonest as it is. Instead they throw out absolutely meaningless information and know that the American public will be thrilled to death that the body count is "even lower than in times of peace", but in fact, this is not true because more soldiers died in those years when you add in the non-hostility related deaths during the same time period so the information they give is better used for lining the bottom of a bird cage than as information.

Immie

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 07:58 AM
the government isn't playing anything.....the government keeps track of statistics....the government is not the one who chose to present those two particular statistics in correlation to each other....

Well, I could agree with you except that the original report was written by the Congressional Research Service. Maybe you are right in that the spin comes from Fox rather than the government. :dunno: That may be the case, but I tend to think it goes deeper than that. Maybe not.


however, the original post does err in trying to make the correlation it did.....as has been pointed out that correlation tells us nothing about the impact of the Iraq war and it's a bit silly to pretend it does......

will that do?

Thank you... it does very well.

Immie

glockmail
11-15-2007, 09:00 AM
Oh, I think you are completely wrong.

I think the government is playing number games. If they weren't they would have shown numbers that were comparable rather than throw in numbers that don't apply against each other. The government knows that when people look at these kind of reports they look for the bottom line and the heck with the rest. In this case, they look at the comparison... "wow, only 739 soldiers died in '05 compared to..."

Anyway the government knows this just like pollsters know it. A good pollster can take a poll at an Operation Rescue Meeting and make it sound like 98% of Americans are for Abortion on demand.

Yes, I'm sure they are attempting to spin this one. I've no doubt about it.

Immie As I said earlier...

glockmail
11-15-2007, 09:02 AM
if they were intentionally trying to mislead then the would not have labeled the charts they way they did......they would have simply labeled them military deaths..... The article was written for 8th grade reading comprehension and Immie wants it written for 3rd grade. Or else it confuses too many Democrats.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 09:07 AM
The article was written for 8th grade reading comprehension and Immie wants it written for 3rd grade. Or else it confuses too many Democrats.

No, I want honesty and integrity from both my government and the media. Is that too much to ask?

:laugh2:

Immie

glockmail
11-15-2007, 09:10 AM
No, I want honesty and integrity from both my government and the media. Is that too much to ask?

:laugh2:

Immie

What part of the government report was dishonest, or even intentionally misleading?

All I want here is honesty from you.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 09:24 AM
What part of the government report was dishonest, or even intentionally misleading?

All I want here is honesty from you.

Obviously you have not read the thread or you wouldn't ask me to repeat something that I have said several times.

The whole thing is misleading. The numbers presented were done so with a deliberate attempt to mislead. They buried some numbers deep in the report but the data is laid out to mislead the casual reader. Maybe PMP is correct and this was done by Fox and not the government, but it was done none the less. The media is nothing less that a tool of the government nowdays anyway.

Now, you are welcomed to your opinion, whether it is right or wrong. I really don't care, but as I said earlier a good pollster knows how to manipulate data... he can interview Operation Rescue and come out with a poll that shows that 98% of America is for abortion on demand. That is what is being done here. Sprinkle a little bit of truth among lots of inaccurate or meaningless data tables and people will come away with an inaccurate and meaningless impression of the report.

Immie

glockmail
11-15-2007, 09:32 AM
......

The whole thing is misleading. .....

Bullshit. The first sentence of the OP is quite clear to anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension. I read all your posts about this and it is clear that you either misunderstood that sentence, are a conspiracy kook or Bush-Hater, or are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 09:35 AM
Bullshit. The first sentence of the OP is quite clear to anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension. I read all your posts about this and it is clear that you either misunderstood that sentence, are a conspiracy kook or Bush-Hater, or are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

D) You are a Republican Hack.

{edit}

Whether you like it or not that report is most definitely written to mislead. What don't you understand about that? It is as clear as the nose on your face. They gave two different sets of numbers that don't correlate in the slightest manner. Give me one good reason for doing this! Just one! It all boils down to trying to justify the number of dead by misleading the public into thinking they are safer in the Middle East than they are at home.

Deny it!

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 09:43 AM
Obviously you have not read the thread or you wouldn't ask me to repeat something that I have said several times.

The whole thing is misleading. The numbers presented were done so with a deliberate attempt to mislead. They buried some numbers deep in the report but the data is laid out to mislead the casual reader. Maybe PMP is correct and this was done by Fox and not the government, but it was done none the less. The media is nothing less that a tool of the government nowdays anyway.

Now, you are welcomed to your opinion, whether it is right or wrong. I really don't care, but as I said earlier a good pollster knows how to manipulate data... he can interview Operation Rescue and come out with a poll that shows that 98% of America is for abortion on demand. That is what is being done here. Sprinkle a little bit of truth among lots of inaccurate or meaningless data tables and people will come away with an inaccurate and meaningless impression of the report.

Immie


This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 09:59 AM
This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

dmp,

Interpret it how you want. I'm sorry, but the facts that you laid out are clearly misleading. Now, either the government is trying to mislead, Fox is trying to mislead or you are trying to mislead. I prefer to believe it is the government over you.

I have no problem with the numbers. Either way, I would not say... "bring them home because, my God, too many are dieing". I do say redeploy them in a way to be more efficient, but that is besides the point. What I mean here is that the fact that 1,942 soldiers died in 2005 compared to any of the other numbers in the 90's would not bother me and would not get me clammering to bring them home because of this. But to claim that only 739 soldiers died in combat in 2005 and this is a good thing because in 1992 1293 died is just plain ridiculous. The two sets of numbers do not correlate.

{edit}
The fact is that 739 soldiers died is an amazingly low number and one that would help to gain my support, if I didn't fully believe that there was a better way to fight this war. But show numbers that actually correlate is all that I am asking. Make them mean something.
{/edit}

Soldiers die in war. We knew that before we went in and, believe it or not, I supported the initial phase of the war. I simply believe that now we must change our strategy.

I'm sorry, but, either present the report with numbers that do correlate or the report is meaningless and misleading. That is all I am saying.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 10:20 AM
dmp,

Interpret it how you want. I'm sorry, but the facts that you laid out are clearly misleading. Now, either the government is trying to mislead, Fox is trying to mislead or you are trying to mislead. I prefer to believe it is the government over you.


Misleading in what way? If you honestly think clearly labeled numbers, from a clear available source are 'misleading' I can't fix you. My daughter understood the numbers when I read her the OP. She's 8 years old for what it's worth.




What I mean here is that the fact that 1,942 soldiers died in 2005 compared to any of the other numbers in the 90's would not bother me and would not get me clammering to bring them home because of this. But to claim that only 739 soldiers died in combat in 2005 and this is a good thing because in 1992 1293 died is just plain ridiculous. The two sets of numbers do not correlate.

1942 soldiers died from what, in 2005? You have SERIOUS trouble with comprehending what I'm writing and that troubles me.

If 739 soldiers died from COMBAT in 2005, yet 1300 soldiers died from ALL causes in 1992, doesn't that tell you "There are many ways for Military folk to die during service; it appears 'war' is not the primary way"?






{edit}
The fact is that 739 soldiers died is an amazingly low number and one that would help to gain my support, if I didn't fully believe that there was a better way to fight this war. But show numbers that actually correlate is all that I am asking. Make them mean something.
{/edit}


Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?


Soldiers die in war. We knew that before we went in and, believe it or not, I supported the initial phase of the war. I simply believe that now we must change our strategy.

I'm sorry, but, either present the report with numbers that do correlate or the report is meaningless and misleading. That is all I am saying.

Immie

I can't say this ANY MORE CLEARLY. If somebody has another way, PLEASE help Immie.

ALL THE NUMBERS ARE IN THE REPORT. THE REPORT SHOWS ALL DEATHS BROKEN DOWN INTO CATEGORIES. PLEASE READ THE REPORT TO COMPARE ALL THE DATA. THE OP SHOWS TWO DATA POINTS - TOTAL DEATHS FROM 1992-1999, COMPARED TO DEATHS FROM HOSTILE ACTION FROM 2000-2006. THERE IS NOTHING SHADY GOING ON. NOTHING IS HIDDEN. IT IS A BASIC COMPARISON


In chinese:

所有数字是在报告。报告显示所有死亡为类别被划分。请读报告比较所有数据。操作展示二个数据点- 共计死亡从1992-1999, 与死亡比较从敌对行动从2000-2006 。有没什么遮荫继续。没什么掩藏。这是BASIC 比较

In dutch:

ALLE AANTALLEN ZIJN IN HET RAPPORT. HET RAPPORT TOONT ALLE STERFGEVALLEN DIE IN CATEGORIEËN WORDEN OPGESPLITST. GELIEVE TE LEZEN HET RAPPORT OM ALLE GEGEVENS TE VERGELIJKEN. OP TOONT TWEE PUNTEN VAN GEGEVENS - BEDRAAG STERFGEVALLEN VANAF 1992-1999, VERGELEKEN BIJ STERFGEVALLEN DOOR VIJANDIGE ACTIE VANAF 2000-2006. ER ZIJN NIETS HET SHADY GAAN. NIETS IS VERBORGEN. IT IS een VERGELIJKING van BASIC

In French:

TOUS LES NOMBRES SONT DANS LE RAPPORT. LE RAPPORT MONTRE TOUTES LES DÉCÈS DÉCOMPOSÉES EN CATÉGORIES. VEUILLEZ LIRE LE RAPPORT POUR COMPARER TOUTES LES DONNÉES. LES EXPOSITIONS OP DEUX POINTS DE REPÈRES - MONTEZ-VOUS AUX DÉCÈS DE 1992-1999, COMPARÉ AUX DÉCÈS DE L'ACTION HOSTILE DE 2000-2006. IL N'Y A RIEN CONTINUER OMBREUX. RIEN N'EST CACHÉ. C'EST Une COMPARAISON De BASIC WE SURRENDER

In German:

ALLE ZAHLEN SIND IM REPORT. DER REPORT ZEIGT ALLE TODESFÄLLE, DIE UNTEN IN KATEGORIEN GEBROCHEN SIND. LESEN SIE BITTE DEN REPORT, UM ALLE DATEN ZU VERGLEICHEN. HASSELHOF DIE OPERSCHEINEN ZWEI DATEN-PUNKTE - ZÄHLEN SIE TODESFÄLLE VON 1992-1999 ZUSAMMEN, VERGLICHEN MIT TODESFÄLLEN VON DER FEINDLICHEN TÄTIGKEIT VON 2000-2006. ES GIBT NICHTS SCHATTIGES WEITERGEHEN. NICHTS WIRD VERSTECKT. ES IST Ein BASIC VERGLEICH

In Greek:

ΟΛΟΙ ΟΙ ΑΡΙΘΜΟΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΘΕΣΗ. Η ΕΚΘΕΣΗ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΕΙ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΥ ΧΩΡΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΙΕΣ. ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩ ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΘΕΣΗ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΣΥΓΚΡΙΝΕΤΕ ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ. OCA KICKS ASS OP ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΟΥΝ ΔΎΟ ΣΗΜΕΊΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΊΩΝ - ΣΥΜΠΛΗΡΏΣΤΕ ΣΥΝΟΛΙΚΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΌ ΤΟ 1992-1999, ΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΌ ΤΗΝ ΕΧΘΡΙΚΉ ΔΡΑΣΗ ΑΠΌ ΤΟ 2000-2006. ΔΕΝ ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΣΚΙΕΡΗ ΣΥΝΕΧΙΣΗ. ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΡΥΜΜΕΝΟ. Η ΤΠ ΕΊΝΑΙ μια ΣΎΓΚΡΙΣΗ BASIC


In Italian:

TUTTI I NUMERI SONO NEL RAPPORTO. IL RAPPORTO MOSTRA TUTTE LE MORTI SUDDIVISE NELLE CATEGORIE. LEGGA PREGO IL RAPPORTO PER CONFRONTARE TUTTI I DATI. LE ESPOSIZIONI OP DUE PUNTI DI RIFERIMENTI - AMMONTI ALLE MORTI DA 1992-1999, CONFRONTATO ALLE MORTI DA AZIONE OSTILE DA 2000-2006. DeCAPRIO SuCKS CI È NIENTE ACCENDERE OMBREGGIATO. NIENTE È NASCOSTO. È Un CONFRONTO Di BASIC

In Portuguese:

TODOS OS NÚMEROS ESTÃO NO RELATÓRIO. O RELATÓRIO MOSTRA TODAS AS MORTES QUEBRADAS PARA BAIXO EM CATEGORIAS. LEIA POR FAVOR O RELATÓRIO PARA COMPARAR TODOS OS DADOS. AS MOSTRAS OP DOIS PONTOS DE DADOS - TOTALIZE MORTES DE 1992-1999, COMPARADO ÀS MORTES DA AÇÃO HOSTIL DE 2000-2006. NÃO HÁ NADA IR SHADY SOBRE. NADA É ESCONDIDO. É Uma COMPARAÇÃO Do BASIC

In African Clicking Language:

Click-Cli-Click-Clackity-Click-cliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick-cluck-clack

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 10:32 AM
This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

I read the opening post very carefully several times. I scanned the Fox report several times and what I can tell you is that both of those are misleading. I had not gone to the pdf report and I will recant what I said about the government being the misleaders and apologies to glock... but that only drops things in Fox and your lap. This is just one more reason not to trust the media or the net.

And I don't have to calm down. I'm not upset in the least. :laugh2: Never was.

So for the second time, since I came to this site, I will admit I am wrong... I guess that means I have admitted this twice more than anyone else here, right? :p

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 10:34 AM
I read the opening post very carefully several times. I scanned the Fox report several times and what I can tell you is that both of those are misleading. I had not gone to the pdf report and I will recant what I said about the government being the misleaders and apologies to glock... but that only drops things in Fox and your lap. This is just one more reason not to trust the media or the net.

And I don't have to calm down. I'm not upset in the least. :laugh2: Never was.

So for the second time, since I came to this site, I will admit I am wrong... I guess that means I have admitted this twice more than anyone else here, right? :p

Immie

What is misleading? The total numbers of Deaths in the 1990s compared to the deaths strictly from hostile action, in the 2000s? That's misleading somehow?

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 10:35 AM
ALL THE NUMBERS ARE IN THE REPORT. THE REPORT SHOWS ALL DEATHS BROKEN DOWN INTO CATEGORIES. PLEASE READ THE REPORT TO COMPARE ALL THE DATA. THE OP SHOWS TWO DATA POINTS - TOTAL DEATHS FROM 1992-1999, COMPARED TO DEATHS FROM HOSTILE ACTION FROM 2000-2006. THERE IS NOTHING SHADY GOING ON. NOTHING IS HIDDEN. IT IS A BASIC COMPARISON


A basic comparison of numbers that do not correlate. A favorite tactic of pollsters.

Immie

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 10:37 AM
What is misleading? The total numbers of Deaths in the 1990s compared to the deaths strictly from hostile action, in the 2000s? That's misleading somehow?

Why not show the full numbers from 2005?

Why are you trying to differentiate between the two?

Give me one good reason for breaking these out, please.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 10:50 AM
Why not show the full numbers from 2005?

Why are you trying to differentiate between the two?

Give me one good reason for breaking these out, please.

Immie

Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 11:06 AM
Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

Fine... I guess that is as good of a reason as I can ask for. I still believe that to be misleading, but maybe I don't understand your motives. I guess putting liberals in their place is the important thing here.


Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?

A twelve year old would be able to command this war effort better than is being done. LTG Dubik inherited this mess. I don't believe he has all that many options that his superiors have given him and that falls not on the Joint Cheifs, it goes all the way to the top. LTG Dubik is simply making due with what has been given to him.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Fine... I guess that is as good of a reason as I can ask for. I still believe that to be misleading, but maybe I don't understand your motives. I guess putting liberals in their place is the important thing here.


Misleading HOW?? It's NOT misleading unless I didn't include data labels.



A twelve year old would be able to command this war effort better than is being done. LTG Dubik inherited this mess. I don't believe he has all that many options that his superiors have given him and that falls not on the Joint Cheifs, it goes all the way to the top. LTG Dubik is simply making due with what has been given to him.

Immie

You are absolutely SILLY now. Face it - there are FEW people alive today with as much of an understanding of how to fight this war as our Generals in our Military. You are NOT smarter or more-insightful than these men and women.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 11:24 AM
You are absolutely SILLY now. Face it - there are FEW people alive today with as much of an understanding of how to fight this war as our Generals in our Military. You are NOT smarter or more-insightful than these men and women.

Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie

What that tells me is you've never been around senior executives or leaders. I've sat 2 feet from 3-star Generals and heard them talk about strategy and war fighting and planning and training. The level of expertise generally required to get to that level is ASTOUNDING. I know many Majors who retire because they won't get promoted - one of whom is now a contractor on post. This guy would pwn ANYBODY I've met when it comes to discussing the operational Army.

My point is this - at least in the Army - to rise to the level of Colonel or General takes unparalleled leadership, dedication, knowledge of not only how to USE a fighting force, but how to deploy, maintain, sustain, administer, and re-deploy thousands of "20-year-olds-with-weapons".

To see people on a forum claim intellectual superiority to some of our finest (however humanly-flawed) military minds is nauseating.

Look - you have to admit - the simple truth is you AREN'T more-capable or you'd be doing it. If you were as smart or capable as you say, you absolutely would be making a LOT of money DOING it - not simply bragging about it on a forum.

KnowwhatImean?

:beer:

:cheers2:

[edit]
I want to address a misconception. Your statement "Generals take orders" is FAIRLY wrong.

Most of the time it works like this:

The head-guy or gal asks his/her subordinates for THEIR plan to accomplish a task. The subordinates' staffs work night and day drafting a 'how-to' plan. Later, the subordinates take their plans to the boss. The boss reviews the plans and shoots holes in it, which have to be fixed. After they are fixed, the boss gives the 'order' to execute.

The way you're describing it is some autonomous oder-making robot sits isolated in a room and spits out direction. By the time a 3-star, or even a Colonel gets an 'order', he/she's has PLENTY of chances for input. Most of the time.

:)

PostmodernProphet
11-15-2007, 11:35 AM
Do you realize there are fewer people who eat mashed potatoes during the course of a week than there are monkies in Zanzibar? Act now!

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Look - you have to admit - the simple truth is you AREN'T more-capable or you'd be doing it. If you were as smart or capable as you say, you absolutely would be making a LOT of money DOING it - not simply bragging about it on a forum.

KnowwhatImean?

:beer:

:cheers2:

I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration. And maybe, it is not smarter than... maybe it is just not as corrupt, or prideful or what have you. Maybe, my priorities would have been different. No, there is no maybe about that... my priorities would have been to defend this country and not occupy another nation. Big difference... we are not talking intelligence here, we are talking ethics.

Immie

PostmodernProphet
11-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

there are many reasons why it was good that we took action in Iraq.....there are many reasons why we need to continue until the job is finished.....but if the point you are trying to make is that "it's okay, we haven't lost that many soldiers"....then I am not with you....that reason sucks and you shouldn't have raised it.....

darin
11-15-2007, 11:46 AM
there are many reasons why it was good that we took action in Iraq.....there are many reasons why we need to continue until the job is finished.....but if the point you are trying to make is that "it's okay, we haven't lost that many soldiers"....then I am not with you....that reason sucks and you shouldn't have raised it.....

Nope. That's not the point I'm making.

I'm saying Military folk die. They die in service to their nation. In fact, more have died from suicide and 'accidents' than in recent wars. It's the nature of he business.

darin
11-15-2007, 11:47 AM
I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration.

Silly - the leaders of our military leaders ARE our Military Leaders.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 11:51 AM
Most of the time it works like this:

The head-guy or gal asks his/her subordinates for THEIR plan to accomplish a task. The subordinates' staffs work night and day drafting a 'how-to' plan. Later, the subordinates take their plans to the boss. The boss reviews the plans and shoots holes in it, which have to be fixed. After they are fixed, the boss gives the 'order' to execute.

The way you're describing it is some autonomous oder-making robot sits isolated in a room and spits out direction. By the time a 3-star, or even a Colonel gets an 'order', he/she's has PLENTY of chances for input. Most of the time.

:)

The Head Guy in this case would be a Senior Bush Administration Official. Yes, he MIGHT have asked for the input of the Generals... asking and taking the advice are not necessarily the same things.

Aren't there accusations that Bush told them to come up with a plan of war before 9/11? I do not know if that is true or not, but if they are then it would seem the idea was not to fight terrorists, but rather to occupy Iraq. which would lead to questions as to what ARE we doing in Iraq right now.

Okay, so maybe I am turning in to a conspiracy theorist and maybe I do hate Bush, :laugh2: but I love my country and I honor the men and women who are dieing today for us.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 12:05 PM
You think bush is dumb because you don't like him - that's the problem. Further, you assume ANYONE he's appointed or endorsed is dumb because you don't like Bush.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 12:12 PM
You think bush is dumb because you don't like him - that's the problem. Further, you assume ANYONE he's appointed or endorsed is dumb because you don't like Bush.

I didn't say dumb or stupid. You put those words in there.

I do not hate him.

And I don't think the Admin is dumb.

Now, if you exchanged the word corrupt for dumb, I would agree with you.


I do not believe any of them are dumb. It takes a hell of a lot of smarts to get where they are. I cannot and will not deny that.

I do, however, believe that the system of government that we have at the moment, corrupts these people. By the time they get to where they are they have had to sell their souls way too often.

That is the plain and simple truth of my beliefs about our political leaders today.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 12:16 PM
Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie

So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 12:25 PM
So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

I'll put my ethics up against Bush's, Cheney's or any of them in a heart beat.

And again, you brought the discussion of "intelligence" into the fray, not me:


Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?

I don't think I'm smarter... but I do think I am more ethical than any politician out there.

Immie

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 12:30 PM
So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

And here, post #78, is where I clarified what I was saying.


I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration. And maybe, it is not smarter than... maybe it is just not as corrupt, or prideful or what have you. Maybe, my priorities would have been different. No, there is no maybe about that... my priorities would have been to defend this country and not occupy another nation. Big difference... we are not talking intelligence here, we are talking ethics.

Immie

darin
11-15-2007, 12:46 PM
And here, post #78, is where I clarified what I was saying.



Immie

Okay. So...Bush (and those he appoints) is (are) less ethical than you. You should run for office.

Immanuel
11-15-2007, 12:51 PM
Okay. So...Bush (and those he appoints) is (are) less ethical than you. You should run for office.

Heck no!

Don't want it.

I've said it before (on this board I think, but maybe not) and I will say it here. I believe that the vast majority of individuals who enter the world of politics do so with the desire to help this country. However, by the time they reach the level of Congress or the Presidency they have had to "give in" on their moral beliefs so many times for the funding it takes to get to where they are that they have been corrupted.

I don't want the job and if it paid more money every year than Bill Gates has acquired in his entire life time, I still would not take the job. I'm not saying I would not like to put my thoughts and beliefs into action, but I don't want the temptation. Thank you for the nomination, but as a decent human being I must emphatically decline. ;)

God Bless,

Immie