<![CDATA[The Numbers Speak]]>Someone posted this on another site and i thought it was quite interesting...

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
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 Clinton years @14,000 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ........ 2,252
1999 ........ 1,984
2000 ........ 1,983
2001 ............ 890
2002 ......... 1,007
2003 ......... 1,410
2004 ......... 1,887
2005 ............ 919
2006............. 920 Bush years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths

In 1980, during Carter's "Reign of Peace," there were 2,392 US military fatalities in that year alone!

These figures are :proof: that the mainstream Media and our Politicians will pick and choose what they want you to know. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting.

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Another lie!

The latest census of Americans shows the following distribution of
American citizens by Race:

European descent (White) .............. 69.12%
Hispanic ........................................ 12.5%
Black............................................ 12.3%
Asian .............................................. 3.7%
Native American ...............................1.0 %
Other .............................................. 2.6%

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%

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
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/12700/the-numbers-speakRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 14:56:30 GMTSat, 08 Dec 2007 03:05:58 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:46:03 GMT]]>^^^ What he said.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187484https://fargostreet.com/post/187484Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:46:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:25:27 GMT]]>Some people need to stop and think sometimes. Things like this are more than just a topic of conversation to some people. My cousin was killed in Iraq on the Dec 5th doing something that he and all the people in his troop believed in. He sent me a letter in which he said "All of us fighting over believe that we are making a real difference by helping free an extremely oppressed people from a terrible history of dictators and terrorists".

So please think about the deeper meaning of everything before you make a completely false statement. Yes, we are spending a shit ton of money on this, but in my eyes and the men and women to are DYING FOR THE FREEDOM OF OTHER PEOPLE its all worth it.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187364https://fargostreet.com/post/187364Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:25:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:29:26 GMT]]>

JohnW;198134 wrote:
Good to know, if those bush administration numbers could at all be taken as acurate. The departments efforts to reduce the 'number' of casualties (if not the actual casualties) are ingenius!

I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, but pretty much everything you stated is wrong. You obviously didn't read the report? Or are you citing some other reports? First, the report was done by the Congressional Research Service, who compiled the stats from the DOD. It is a report that was submitted to congress. If the numbers were skewed somehow, don't you think the democratically controlled congress would have went ballistic? If you have evidence of skewed numbers please supply it.

JohnW;198134 wrote:
You also need to remember that this war has had more horrible maimings, comas, burns, walking dead, brain injuries, and vegetables produced than WWII. Is 'alive' a relative term?

100% wrong. Where are you getting your numbers from? The last 3 mideast conflicts have had ~25,000 wounded, WWII had ~670,000 wounded. Even if every single one of the 25,000 wounded were maimed, in comas, burned and were vegetables do you seriously think that would be more than a fraction of the 670,000 wounded in WWII?

JohnW;198134 wrote:
The way I see it for example is that they will say with an amount of certainty that X number of soldiers were counted as casualties (a key term) in 2006. The number of actual casualties that cannot be recatagorized, or disqualified may be a hell of alot more, but it is definately at least X.

The report very clearly shows the number of deaths and the number of wounded current as of Feb 9, 2007. Of course they are only going to report the deaths and injuries that are certain. How else would you do it? Take a guess?

JohnW;198134 wrote:
I don't think we the public will be given the actual numbers until much later down the road if ever. It simply isn't something that is in the publics best interest to know. National security and whatnot.

You have a right to your opinion, just no facts to back it up.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187335https://fargostreet.com/post/187335Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:29:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:47:42 GMT]]>We took over two enemy countries and have governments in place that in time will turn those countries into productive members of the world economy, besides oil and whatnot. Even if they still hate us the terrorists will no longer be able to call them home.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187294https://fargostreet.com/post/187294Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:47:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:52:16 GMT]]>

PSiedTSi;198219 wrote:
I think the key is that other presidents got something accomplished, and I'm still waiting for the result from Bush...

He borrowed more money ($500,000,000,000 per year) and increased our national debt (currently $9,171,651,912, 589.94 and rising ~$1,530,000,000 per day) more than any other president in history.

That's an accomplishment.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187280https://fargostreet.com/post/187280Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:52:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:12:40 GMT]]>

PSiedTSi;198219 wrote:
I think the key is that other presidents got something accomplished, and I'm still waiting for the result from Bush...

Dude.. do you hear that? bzzzt...bzzzzzzt..

They are warming up the tazers.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187269https://fargostreet.com/post/187269Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:12:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:48:53 GMT]]>I think the key is that other presidents got something accomplished, and I'm still waiting for the result from Bush...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187237https://fargostreet.com/post/187237Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:48:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Numbers Speak on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:23:57 GMT]]>Good to know, if those bush administration numbers could at all be taken as acurate. The departments efforts to reduce the 'number' of casualties (if not the actual casualties) are ingenius! You also need to remember that this war has had more horrible maimings, comas, burns, walking dead, brain injuries, and vegetables produced than WWII. Is 'alive' a relative term? The way I see it for example is that they will say with an amount of certainty that X number of soldiers were counted as casualties (a key term) in 2006. The number of actual casualties that cannot be recatagorized, or disqualified may be a hell of alot more, but it is definately at least X. I don't think we the public will be given the actual numbers until much later down the road if ever. It simply isn't something that is in the publics best interest to know. National security and whatnot.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/187152https://fargostreet.com/post/187152Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:23:57 GMT