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

[Kathianne]

Is the number of soldiers who come back missing arms, legs and brain lobes higher or lower now or in peace time?

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]

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]

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.

[retiredman]

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!

[Kathianne]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

What are the murders then? Are these murders in Iraq?