I made fun of it because it didn't deserve a substantive response. I knew the numbers were a deceptive rightwing, pro-war way to spin the Iraq war as "no big deal":
Military Deaths 1980 to 2006
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
I made fun of it because it didn't deserve a substantive response. I knew the numbers were a deceptive rightwing, pro-war way to spin the Iraq war as "no big deal":
I had no intention of misleading, if I did why would I provide the link?
US deaths in the Iraqi theatre have been amazingly low. Of course, this does not take into account catastrophic brain injuries, which as military doctors say, are higher than in any other conflict due to medical advances. Since you won’t have to take care of one of those guys, and neither will I, there’s no need to bring it up though, my apologies.
Damo’s point of a very low loss of life for the United States is true.
And as we know, the jaw-dropping number of Iraqi casualties, is a “number that doesn’t interest me (us) very much, frankly” as Colin Powell admitted. They’re kind of like dog lives. You know how one dog year is 7 human years…well, one Iraqi life is like 100 thousand US lives, so really, we’ve both lost the same amount of people. In fact, when you look at it like that, we’ve lost more!
Yep. A success all around. Onward Christian Soldier…we march, next stop; Iran. Let us not dilly dally.
Well, Bush has to solve his lower than normal death rate during a war. He's beginning to feel inadequate.
No, no, no. You can't convince republicans of the folly of their policy by pointing out death and blood. These people only understand money.
Their iraq war will end up costing upwards of two trillion dollars possibly. More than vietnam and korea combined. How much of that money could have gone towards offsetting tax cuts for the Paris Hilton's of the world, and building bridges to nowhere?
If you count Iraqi dead, he doesn’t have a lower than normal death rate Damo. Human beings are not disposable regardless of where they are born. Every one of those loses was a human life. We don’t keep track of those numbers. We have not bothered to keep track. This, in the “culture of life”. I wish I could laugh.
You forget that the accounting goes this way...
Iraqi dead = Good (They were all bad guys anyway, yeah even the ones the 'liberal media' calls 'innocent'.)
US Military dead = Bad, if above a certain level. Bush feels inadequate because he hasn't reached that limit yet....
/sarcasm
There, he's getting it!
What's messed up is that accidents went down with Bush too....
The number of accidents tends to go down by 35%, when you cut the size of the military from its cold war height, by 35%.
lol
Epicurus
Reasonable
The number of accidents tends to go down by 35%, when you cut the size of the military from its cold war height, by 35%.
lol
Fair enough. Brain fart, didn't even think of that.
You don't major in any of the physical sciences or math in college do you?
(just teasing)
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Don't listen to that idiot. You are correct in stating that it was a dramatic decrease in the percentages. The size of the military does not factor in. That is why they use percentages. Out of the deaths in the military it went from about 70% of deaths due to accident to about 26% under Clinton in 2000. They use percentages so that you can compare one year to the next (for the most part). Obviously the percentage will tend to decrease in times of war because a greater percentage die from the war itself.
Increased safety measures and better training have led to the lower percentages.