Interesting casualty figures...

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#1
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

FAS is a pretty credible source, at least on the military hardware side of things. I'm inclined to believe them, but would appreciate corroborating sources.

Basically, the figures are for ALL military personnel deaths, from car crashes to natural death to being blown up by a retarded muj.

*****************************
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 .......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 ....... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
2000 .......... 1,983
2 001 ......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 .......... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ......... 919
2006.......... 920
*********************************

The same thing happened in Desert Storm, actually, among the divisions that were sent into the desert. Taken away from booze, the ghetto, weekend bar fights, and chicks to fight over, more military personnel are alive at the end of the day living where people blow themselves up on a daily basis.

Just like with the Iraqi civilians, living in a country where retards blow themselves up in markets is safer than living in a country where the secret police take you away in the middle of the night, and there's an embargo that means hundreds of thousands starve to death every year.

As best as I can tell, the only people's whose casualty rates are going UP because of the Iraq War are, well, terrorists/"insurgents".
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#2
Those numbers must be false. We all know that Bush is trying to personally kill every single man between the ages of 18-25 in Iraq.:icon_roll
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,651
37,815
628
In a porn tree
#3
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

FAS is a pretty credible source, at least on the military hardware side of things. I'm inclined to believe them, but would appreciate corroborating sources.

Basically, the figures are for ALL military personnel deaths, from car crashes to natural death to being blown up by a retarded muj.

*****************************
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 .......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 ....... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
2000 .......... 1,983
2 001 ......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 .......... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ......... 919
2006.......... 920
*********************************

The same thing happened in Desert Storm, actually, among the divisions that were sent into the desert. Taken away from booze, the ghetto, weekend bar fights, and chicks to fight over, more military personnel are alive at the end of the day living where people blow themselves up on a daily basis.

Just like with the Iraqi civilians, living in a country where retards blow themselves up in markets is safer than living in a country where the secret police take you away in the middle of the night, and there's an embargo that means hundreds of thousands starve to death every year.

As best as I can tell, the only people's whose casualty rates are going UP because of the Iraq War are, well, terrorists/"insurgents".
Dying for booze and pussy... the American way.

Dying while trying to protect a bunch of savages from their fellow savages... a waste and a tragedy.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#5
The same thing happened in Desert Storm, actually, among the divisions that were sent into the desert. Taken away from booze, the ghetto, weekend bar fights, and chicks to fight over, more military personnel are alive at the end of the day living where people blow themselves up on a daily basis.

Just like with the Iraqi civilians, living in a country where retards blow themselves up in markets is safer than living in a country where the secret police take you away in the middle of the night, and there's an embargo that means hundreds of thousands starve to death every year.

As best as I can tell, the only people's whose casualty rates are going UP because of the Iraq War are, well, terrorists/"insurgents".
The actuall cold, hard truth, and statistics do back this up, is that more often than not, more military servicemen die during peacetime than in times of war.

The basic explanation for it is thus: our military is highly skilled, so when they're actually "on the job", they do it competently and with care and precision. When they're off just fucking around on their own during a time of peace, human nature kicks in, and our troops can get careless and have accidents.

But whatever, it's just so much more fun to perpetuate the myth that more of our troops are dying in Bush's "illegal" war than in any other war ever in the history of mankind. EVER.
 

Fr. Dougal

Registered User
Feb 17, 2004
5,853
0
216
#6
Yes, but the actual facts are telling too..

Using the actual figures from the Congressional Research Service report cited above, the total military deaths under each of the two administrations are as follows:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths
So that's 1200 more deaths... but that's DURING WARTIME.

I don't want to sound like a callous ass, and every death is a tragedy... but only 1200 during war years isn't that bad.

Didn't we lose that amount in a week during Vietnam? If it was anyone else in the WH, people would be praising the low numbers of deaths...
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#7
Yes, but the actual facts are telling too..

So that's 1200 more deaths... but that's DURING WARTIME.

I don't want to sound like a callous ass, and every death is a tragedy... but only 1200 during war years isn't that bad.

Didn't we lose that amount in a week during Vietnam? If it was anyone else in the WH, people would be praising the low numbers of deaths...
There's no way to sound like a callous ass, but you have the facts on your side. That's why so many people's perception of the Iraq War is, basically, based on emotion and at times, outright ridiculous hysteria. What's the death toll at this point? 4k? A bit higher? Not to disrepect the sacrifices those men and women made, but it's disturbing to me that such a relatively low death toll is considered "too high a price to pay" these days. Individuals who truly believe that way have apparently precious little understanding of war in general or what is necessary to achieve our goals in the war on terror and the Middle East specifically.

Then again, there's a lot of bullshit rhetoric that's thrown out there on this war. The latest one, and I was disappointed to even hear Anthony throw this out, is that "this war lasted longer than WW2". What an assinine statement. There were times where we were losing, on average, 250 soldiers a DAY during WW2. It also discounts that the current "war" isn't so much a true war, as military operations against an actual Iraq army have long ago ceased, we're in the rebuilding / reconstruction phase, and we went through an insurgency back when we were rebuilding Germany and Japan as well. Perhaps not as fierce, but Jesus Christ, we're STILL in Germany & Japan. Should we consider WW2 a "quagmire" then? Because based on this nonsense logic, WW2 is essentially still ongoing, cause we're still there.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#8
Yes, but the actual facts are telling too..



So that's 1200 more deaths... but that's DURING WARTIME.

I don't want to sound like a callous ass, and every death is a tragedy... but only 1200 during war years isn't that bad.

Didn't we lose that amount in a week during Vietnam? If it was anyone else in the WH, people would be praising the low numbers of deaths...
I totally agree, I just wanted to be honest and upfront about my previous numbers being wrong.

Makes your arguments more effective when YOU do that rather than waiting for the other guy to do it, you know...