Oregon Magazine  
   Cover
 

E-RFD: Who, Exactly, Had the Highest Casualties? 

(Cato Institute note at bottom -- just above the regular E-RFD warnng --  questions publication of this item.)


From: fensteg@cox.net
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: 4/5/2008 8:40:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time
Subj: Military Death Stats

(Forwarded to OrMag by airedorfarm@verizon.net.

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.  Source(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)

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 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 ........ 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 ...... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ........ 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 ......... . 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ............. 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ........ 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 ( Clinton Year)

2001 ......... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ....... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............ 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007............899 (George W Year)

Clinton
years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths


If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

It surprised me too, so I went on line to find out what military actions we were in during Clinton 's presidency.  Here is a web site I found that lists out those conflicts. (not wars)

Military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_States#1991-1999

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President
(Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think
that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick
and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present
only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them
march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for
their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following
FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:

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

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Operation Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ................................... 10.74%
Black ... ..................................... 9.67%
Asian ......................................... 1.81%
Native American ......................... 1. 09%
Other .......................................... 0.33%

I was surprised again .until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream
media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina , Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her
Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime - while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next few months, let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation.
Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice?  Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they
may be confirmed by anyone at:   http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.p


Cato Comment:

The Oregon Magazine memo on who had the highest casualties -- http://oregonmag.com/ERFDWarStats508.html -- is a real eye opener. But when I downloaded the file cited as the source (a Congressional Research Service study), the file completely contradicted the numbers in the Oregon Magazine article.

Why would you republish an email hoax that is patently wrong? Why would you cite as evidence the report that proves the email is wrong? The military fatalities listed on your web page for the Clinton years are almost twice as high as the CRS numbers, while the numbers during the Bush years are 20 percent too low.

I suggest you delete this page or correct the numbers.

Best,
Randal
-- 
Cato Institute
26344 SW Metolius Meadows Drive
Camp Sherman, Oregon 97730
541-595-1460
541-460-3644 cell
http://ti.org/antiplanner

Update May05, again from an email we received ...

US MILITARY DEATHS BELOW 26-YR AVERAGE

Image Despite the barrage of negative media coverage, U.S. military casualties for the first six years of the Bush administration are actually well below the national average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980 (See WorldNetDaily article link below).

Discussing this under-reported topic is General Jerry Curry, an amazing Talk Show guest who rose from the rank of Private in the Vietnam war to the rank of Major General.

During your interview, General Curry puts the matter into perspective, explaining that in 2002 a total of 1942 military personnel were killed in all causes ranging from homicides, illnesses, and hostile actions, compared to 2392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter’s administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in 1980 one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.

General Curry adds that according to the Department of Defense, even with the increase in deaths from the Iraq war beginning in 2003, U.S. troop deaths did not skyrocket above peacetime norms.

General Curry is the author of a book on leadership, faith and facing racism titled From Private to General – An African American soldier Rises Through the Ranks. He served in the US Army for 34 years, served three presidents and is a frequent media commentator.

Source: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62294

OMED:  The internet is, indeed, an interesting place.  Unlike the mainstream media, there are facts mixed in with the BS.  To the folks at Oregon Magazine, that description is a perfect description of life.

Response to a Reader Note:  (Another reader digs up the truth, plus OrMag reply.)

Original Response to Mr. O'Toole:  Read the note below, which is and always has been included with all E-RFDs. 

Note: E-RFDs are messages that circulate around the internet.  Some are factual and some are mythical.  We make no distinction between the types, here, but rather offer them pretty much as they come in -- as examples of comment and rumor from a global mind.