US Lost More Soldiers Under Clinton Than Iraq

**Wallace** · 23-02-2007, 12:20 PM

He is blithering about your total misrepresentation of the truth.

Almost all the deaths from '93 through '96 were either from illness, accident, suicide, or homicide. A total of 59 were caused by enemy action from 1993 - 1999.

You are comparing combat deaths in Iraq with these figures from the Clinton years. What you haven't done is include the figures from the Bush years that are deaths due to the same causes - suicide, homicide, accident, or illness.

If you added those figures, then Bush would win on the numbers game.

**man with no head** · 23-02-2007, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

What are you blithering on about?
Are you reading this ?

I call bullshit again. Your source is wrong.

Have you read this?

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personne...eath_Rates.pdf

**man with no head** · 23-02-2007, 02:10 PM

The site is down (it wasn't last night).

Here's the important part of that PDF from the U.S. military:

I suspect this thread should die now that the OP has been debunked (yet again). This is what happens when one reads articles and fails to consider the source of outlandish allegations.

**lom** · 23-02-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

I suspect this thread should die now that the OP has been debunked (yet again).

Don't hope to much, you can't beat a liar with the truth

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2007, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by surasak

I suspect this thread should die now that the OP has been debunked (yet again).

Don't hope to much, you can't beat a liar with the truth

One never dares to hope to (sic) much around here...there's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics, eh?

**Little Chuchok** · 28-02-2007, 06:02 AM

..............

**Little Chuchok** · 28-02-2007, 06:04 AM

^Boonie, you have been telling porkies.Is this all you can come up with?A bit lame for you really......

**stroller** · 28-02-2007, 08:35 AM

^
not really.

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2007, 10:05 PM

I'm bored with this thread or I'd continue the discussion.
Suffice to say, statistics can be manipulated whichever way you want - to prove your point...

**stroller** · 28-02-2007, 10:16 PM

So, has surasak 'manipulated' US military death statistics, to disprove some obscure blogger's diatribe and your speculations?

Maybe some commie mole has 'fixed' the figures to make Clinton look good?

**man with no head** · 28-02-2007, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I'm bored with this thread or I'd continue the discussion.
Suffice to say, statistics can be manipulated whichever way you want - to prove your point...

You still don't get it, do you?

The article compares overall military deaths during the Clinton years to combat deaths in Iraq. Apples to oranges. It's like saying that those who wear seat belt have fewer deaths are down because DUIs have decreased. Two completely unrelated instances.

If you want to compare overall military deaths per year under Clinton to overall military deaths per year under Bush then you have a fair comparison. If you want to compare overall combat deaths per year under Clinton to overall combat deaths per year under Bush then you have a fair comparison.

Comparing the overall set of deaths in one scenario to a subset of deaths in another is simply intellectual dishonesty in the worst possible degree.

That is why the article in the OP is fundamentally flawed.

**Whiteshiva** · 01-03-2007, 09:38 AM

Keep it up, BM - just deny everything, blame it on the communists/liberals/muslims/democrats, and all will eventually be OK!

After all - as long as you yourself don't acctually admit to being wrong, there is no loss of face, right.......?

Regardless of what everybody else thinks........

BM - You would be great as a Thai politician!

**Boon Mee** · 02-03-2007, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Keep it up, BM - just deny everything, blame it on the communists/liberals/muslims/democrats, and all will eventually be OK!

After all - as long as you yourself don't acctually admit to being wrong, there is no loss of face, right.......? BM - You would be great as a Thai politician!

I take that as a real complement, cheers!

**Whiteshiva** · 13-03-2007, 09:33 AM

This thread is just too good to not get resurrected from time to time.

Has anyone got the latest figures from Iraq and how do they now compare to the Clinton years?

**Butterfly** · 13-03-2007, 09:37 AM

official numbers or estimate ?

**raycarey** · 19-04-2007, 09:59 AM

this most recent bloody weekend surely put bush over the top, right?

**Boon Mee** · 19-04-2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

this most recent bloody weekend surely put bush over the top, right?

The Fat Lady hasn't even warmed up yet...
Iraq may hold twice as much oil

Iraq could hold almost twice as much oil in its reserves as had been thought, according to the most comprehensive independent study of its resources since the US-led invasion in 2003.
The potential presence of a further 100bn barrels in the western desert highlights the opportunity for Iraq to be one of the world’s biggest oil suppliers, and its attractions for international oil companies – if the conflict in the country can be resolved.

Link

**raycarey** · 01-05-2007, 12:42 AM

with 100 dead US military in april 2007, one has to wonder when more military will have died under bush than clinton.

will it ever happen boner?

**barbaro** · 01-05-2007, 01:06 AM

^ Yes, April was bad for some Americans. The total today was 104 dead.

We should remember, more Iraqis are getting killed and tortured than the Americans.

The casualties numbers are only a drop in the bucket, if you compare U.S. casualties with Iraqis.

This said, There will be more and higher casualties in the coming months.

I have posted months ago that there would likely be a spike in May because the insurgents have left, adapted, and are now back to planting EFPs, IEDs, and other things.

With respect to Boon Mee, I do not concur that more Americans died in the military under Clinton than Bush.

And this also means.....civilians.

**Wallalai** · 01-05-2007, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Keep it up, BM - just deny everything, blame it on the communists/liberals/muslims/democrats, and all will eventually be OK!

As long as he don't blame it on the french baguette...

**raycarey** · 27-06-2007, 10:48 AM

he'll probably try to blame it on SF values----whatever those are.

**Boon Mee** · 28-06-2007, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

he'll probably try to blame it on SF values----whatever those are.

Well, ray, your posts appear to reflect the embodiment of much of them...I'd reckon' to say...

**raycarey** · 28-06-2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I'd reckon' to say

is that what you'd reckon to say, tex? are you posting this from down on the ranch?

i find it interesting that many of those who claim to be conservative feel the need to use these sort of 'down home' colloquialisms.....when it is so obviously not part of their normal vocabulary. earl and sk also put on this affectation.

i wonder why they feel the need to do it.

**sabang** · 28-06-2007, 12:22 PM

Well danged if Ai Know y'all!.

**blackgang** · 04-08-2007, 10:16 AM

here is some stuff to look at..Links at bottom..

War Casualty Stats
war???? These are some rather eye-opening facts:
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics. Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1007
2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*
2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*
2005 .......... 919*
2006 .......... 920* * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency? Were we at war? Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? Especially look at 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel Peace Prize, Jimmy Carter" himself, there were 2,392 US military fatalities.
What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting. Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong again - The latest census shows the following:
European descent (white) ..... 69.12% Hispanic .... 12.5% African American ..... 12.3% Asian ..... 3.7% Native American ..... 1.0% Other ..... 2.6% Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are: European descent (white) ..... 74.31% Hispanic ..... 10.74% African American ..... 9.67% Asian ..... 1.81% Native American ... .. 1.09% Other ..... 2.33%
These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
"[A] man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles." -Thomas Jefferson

Thread: US Lost More Soldiers Under Clinton Than Iraq

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions