PDA

View Full Version : Military Casualties ?




purepaloma
08-16-2007, 08:56 PM
Just got this in an email........is it correct? For some reason I feel it's not. For example today we use a HUGE amount of contract military mercanaries.

----------------------------------------

The statistics below are from a Congressional Research Service Report from June 2007 (see full report at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)

>

>

> Why has the media not complained before the Iraq war????

>

> As tragic as the loss of any member of our Armed Forces is, consider

> the following statistics.



> Annual fatalities of military members on Active Duty since 1980:

> 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 .......... 1,007

> 2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*

> 2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*

> 2005 .......... 919*

> 2006 .......... 920*



* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom only.



> Does this mean that losses from the two current conflicts in the

> Middle East are LESS than military fatalities during Mr. Clinton's presidency, when we were not at war (even though > the bad guys were at war with us)?

>

> In 1980, under President "Nobel Peace Prize” Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. Where was liberal outrage then?

>

> What this clearly indicates is that our biased media and liberal politicians present only those facts that support their political agenda. Surprised???

derdy
08-16-2007, 11:11 PM
I feel the whole 'liberal bias' is in itself bs created by the 'conservative' media to justify their being 'conservative'.

however, if you really look at it, what they define as 'liberal' is any media that opposes what the government says. In reaction to the media digging up dirt on watergate and on vietnam, the 'conservative' movement created think tanks and raised money from very wealthy people to create their own 'news'. I say 'conservative' because these people are far from tradional conservatives. they are for world government, big business, and the religous right. To me being conservative is being fiscally conservative and going by the Constitution the way it is.

In the supposed 'liberal' media, you couldn't find a news organization that was willing to go after Iran-Contra. Anyone who did was ridiculed in the 'liberal' media and called a conspiracy theorist until a cargo plane got shot down by the Sandanistas dropping of AKs to the Contras. For more on this see http://www.consortiumnews.com/archives.html and start at the bottom. Robert Parry, author, journalist, and webmaster of Consortiumnews, has much insight and written books on the 'liberal bias' media phenomenon.



also see 'orwell rolls in his grave'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1925114769515892401&q=orwell+rolls+in+his+grave&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Can you think of many news organizations that didn't support going invading Iraq in 2003? No liberal bias there. Now the media has done an about face, with the exception of Fox News and few others, because people know the war is going poorly and who will watch a news channel that is obviously BS (i know there are still some knuckleheads that watch Fox News)

Point is, the media will coddle with government until such time that it is so apparent and obvious that the government is misleading that the media can no longer side with them less they face lower ratings.

The real bias comes from corporations owning the major news networks and papers and getting favors from government hence their support for their policies. Anyone that doesn't support those policies is then 'liberal.'

Just my two cents

Kregener
08-16-2007, 11:47 PM
We had plenty to "wail" about suffering under Carter without military casualties.

Besides, the American War Library lists only 8 military deaths on 1980.

E-mail rumor from the neocons...

Darren McFillintheBlank
08-17-2007, 01:13 AM
..

PennCustom4RP
08-17-2007, 02:31 AM
Even during the 'no hot war years' there are still actions going on. Our 1979-1991 involvement in Central America is not even fully de-classified yet, so I would expect some of numbers during those years to go up, or at least status change from non military action deaths to KIA
Look at the drop off in numbers from 1992 until War started in 2003, but are fairly consistent from 1980 -1991