Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Military casualty stats - all B.S. aside

TrinityScrimshaw
A friend sent this to me.

Trinity +++

Military Casualty Stats
>
> You will be surprised!
>
>
> Why has the media not complained before the Iraq 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 2006:
> 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-wing media and politicians like to slant is
> that these brave men and women losing their lives are disproportionately 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&gt;
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
0

Comments

33 comments

Date Votes
  • Old Fool
    Excellent post!! Thanks[:D]

    OldFool.jpg
    0
  • LesWVa
    Dont ask how I know..
    But..

    The KIA's are brought back to a place in the US. The bodies are prepared and then sent to the families place of choosing for burial.

    What is not told nor counted are the members of certain "outfits" can not be identified due to who they were and the job in which they were sent to do. So those are not included in any type of Military Casualty Stats.

    So what will happen to them? My guess is and again it is only a guess, that they will end up on a list as MIA/POW's much like the 2000+ from the Viet Nam era once the dust settles.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    For someone who is accusing the liberal media of cherry-picking, you're sure doing a bang up job of doing the same damn thing....
    0
  • AZEX
    You're just pi55ed cause he just spiked ya with the truth.

    Lefties always have a problem with the Truth.

    D.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    In 1980 there were 2,392 military deaths out of a total force of 2,159,630

    In 2005, there were 1,942 deaths out of a total force of 1,664,014
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Excellent post...This post points out the fact that approximately the same number of troops would have died in training accidents/etc, as have died in combat operations in theater...even if they had not been in theater.
    0
  • tobefree
    Ah actually... this post is totally pointless....
    If you think these whiners are concerned about loss of human life listen a wee bit closer...
    The 1st words out of thier mouth is always that money could be put to better use!!!
    I'll guarantee you that the supporters are hurting more over the fallen than those against!!!
    0
  • Rack Ops
    In 2000 there were 758 total military deaths out of a force of 1,530,430
    0
  • Txs
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    In 1980 there were 2,392 military deaths out of a total force of 2,159,630

    In 2005, there were 1,942 deaths out of a total force of 1,664,014
    Could you break those down to percentages for us?
    0
  • cce1302
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    In 1980 there were 2,392 military deaths out of a total force of 2,159,630

    In 2005, there were 1,942 deaths out of a total force of 1,664,014




    Let's go one step further, Rack. These military members died while serving how many US citizens? That would be a useful percentage.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Txs
    Could you break those down to percentages for us?


    Assuming I did the math right....

    Death Rate: 1980: .001075
    Death Rate, 2000: .000495
    Death Rate, 2005: .001167
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by cce1302

    Let's go one step further, Rack. These military members died while serving how many US citizens? That would be a useful percentage.


    I'm not sure what you are asking.

    Are you wanting me to divide the total deaths by the total pop. of the U.S?
    0
  • Txs
    quote:Originally posted by LesWVa
    Dont ask how I know..
    But..

    The KIA's are brought back to a place in the US. The bodies are prepared and then sent to the families place of choosing for burial.

    What is not told nor counted are the members of certain "outfits" can not be identified due to who they were and the job in which they were sent to do. So those are not included in any type of Military Casualty Stats.BS

    This "don't ask me how I know" tale reminds me of the fake spec ops vets who can't even produce a 214 because all their records are classified. [8]

    Details of specific activities at the time of death might be classified, but if they're US military members their deaths must be recorded.

    I don't know what you've heard or seen that you're reading into, but contrary to how it's sometimes portrayed in the movies our military members don't simply disappear. In the real world there are systems in place to deal with casualties incurred during classified operations.
    0
  • Txs
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Txs
    Could you break those down to percentages for us?


    Assuming I did the math right....

    Death Rate: 1980: .001075
    Death Rate, 2000: .000495
    Death Rate, 2005: .001167
    Assuming my math is correct, based on the figures initially stated the US military death rate in peacetime '80 was 0.1107% for the total force. In wartime '05 it was 0.1167%. That's a 0.006% increase.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Has anyone looked at the sources posted ??

    Doug
    0
  • gunnut505
    For those that can't count (or refuse to);
    deaths by DWI (alcohol-involved) in U.S. since 1990-1,265,000
    pedestrian deaths in nM since 1990-17,000
    number of deaths by drowning since 1990-12,639
    deaths due to electrical shock since 1990-11,670
    deaths due to shock and disbelief of statistics from Gov't. since 1990-6
    The point is that people are going to die whether it's during a war or not, the number of brave servicemembers who died in a war should remain an important number, since they died in place of YOU.

    Lefties think that by enumerating the number of casualties and wounded as often as they do, that they can somehow change a Nation's perspective as regards war against terror. What they fail to take into account is that the terrorists revel in the deaths of their minions, and raise them to martyr status as a reminder to other terrorists that they can become someone (but only after they die).
    As long as the puddin' heads think they can change things by surrendering to the terrorists; we have a fight on our hands.
    0
  • Txs
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    Has anyone looked at the sources posted ??

    Doug
    Do you have other sources that contradict these?
    0
  • joeaf1911a1
    One thing seems to be missing unless I missread the figures. Usually
    "battle casualties" and "non battle casualties' along with MIA and POW"s
    were shown seperately. In WW 2, battle casualties and non battle casualties were close to the same in number. Is combining these two types of casualties giving the left wing press a field day for mumbers.
    For example: 3rd Inf Div. Sept 15 '44 to Jan 21 (14 weeks?) :
    KIA 1227 WIA 4852 MIA 108 total battle casualties 6237. Non battle casualties 7895 . This is only one Divisions casualties.. To me, this is how casualty reports should be given. Not lumped together to make
    things look worse. A Division at full strength was about 15,000 men
    but usually about 12,500 or less. Time to get some true facts about our casualties now.
    0
  • River Rat
    What bothers me are those wingnuts who regularly announce the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq -- as if it was some kind of one-sided scorecard. Good thing they don't report game scores for a living. "In sports today, New York 6. In the American League, Boston 3."
    0
  • kimi
    Does the same source have stats regarding peace time training and combat related disabilities?
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    Does the same source have stats regarding peace time training and combat related disabilities?


    Yes. It has a pretty complete breakdown
    0
  • Ba Sardo
    Nice try, Righties.

    From '92 to '00, there were, according to this report cited, exactly...


    .... wait for it....


    ... ONE casualty caused by hostile action and 76 caused by terrorist action.

    From '01 to '06, there were, according to this report, 55 deaths caused by terrorist action and 2,556 deaths caused by hostile action.

    Check it out - Table 5 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

    So, when the question is asked, "Does this really mean that only the combat losses from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the total sum loss of all military personnel lost due to all causes during Mr. Clinton's presidency?" the answer is, yes. Now, ask the question, "Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts AND other peacetime losses are less that the sum total of all accounted losses of Clinton's presidency?" the answer is a resounding NO.

    Oh by the way, I added the italicized portions for clarification of what was a most decidedly misleading question.

    Nice try, Conservatives. Try again.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Txs
    Assuming my math is correct, based on the figures initially stated the US military death rate in peacetime '80 was 0.1107% for the total force. In wartime '05 it was 0.1167%. That's a 0.006% increase.


    Thats why I included the 2000 figures.
    0
  • cce1302
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by cce1302

    Let's go one step further, Rack. These military members died while serving how many US citizens? That would be a useful percentage.


    I'm not sure what you are asking.

    Are you wanting me to divide the total deaths by the total pop. of the U.S?


    My point is that the difference is ridiculously small either way.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    Does the same source have stats regarding peace time training and combat related disabilities?


    Yes. It has a pretty complete breakdown


    Could you post the peace time training injuries in comparison to the combat related casualty stats for us?
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by kimi

    Could you post the peace time training injuries in comparison to the combat related casualty stats for us?


    Any particular year(s)?
    0
  • BarkingDog
    remmeber that about 10% of the deaths in iraq are due to non combat activities and are almost on par with death numbers in regular cities.
    0
  • kimi
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by kimi

    Could you post the peace time training injuries in comparison to the combat related casualty stats for us?


    Any particular year(s)?


    Say 1996 through 2000 as compared to 2002 through 2006 - such might be interesting.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    Kimi, if you don't mind, I'll take the lazy man's route and just post the document...[:)]

    data.jpg
    0
  • kimi
    Thanks, Rack Ops, now I see why. [:D] What? Where are the WIAs?
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity