Thought this was interesting

[Jack L. Gilleland]

The following was sent to me FYI. Thought it was interesting enough to pass it along.
Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007
Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. Military losses, 1980 through 2006 ( http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )



As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980

through 2006:



1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ........... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ........... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 ......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ......... 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 ......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890(George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007............. 899 (George W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths



If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!


And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts', which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.
Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent ............................69.12%
Hispanic .........................................12.5%
Black ................... ........................12..3%
Asian ............................................. 3.7%
Native American ............................1.0%
Other ..............................................2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ............74.31%
Hispanic .....................................10.74%
Black ........................................ 9.67%
Asian ........................................ 1.81%
Native American ....................... 1.09%
Other ......................................... 0.33%
I was surprised again. (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

[Michael Larson]

False

Snopes entry

[Barry Adair]

Originally Posted by jgilleland

The following was sent to me FYI. Thought it was interesting enough to pass it along.
I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report.

Appears this also applies to members.

Don't you just hate it when Mikey comes along and
Pisses in your Post Toasties

[Jack L. Gilleland]

My apologies. I don't like to find out that sources that send me stuff are not researched as they should be. Appreciate the correction Mike.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jgilleland

My apologies. I don't like to find out that sources that send me stuff are not researched as they should be. Appreciate the correction Mike.

No problem.
People send me stuff all the time and I almost always check it out before sending it on.

I have been burned too.

[Thomas H. Dietrich]

I was wondering, often the power of the military isn't to fight in conflicts but to promote strength and allow diplomacy/deterrence work. How effective has the military been in the the current and last administration. How many terroristic attacks have Americans suffered in each?

tom