It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military Deaths Clinton vs Bush

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This is for the people who like to keep a countdown of the war dead. Because there are some who are against the war, that have a morbid fascination with this.

www.nysun.com...


The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?


4,417 Military deaths during Clinton's non-war administration.

3,133 under Bush during a War.

Hopefully this will give some perspective to those people who like to hype the war dead.





[edit on 20-2-2007 by RRconservative]




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Now that is a lot of spin! (and a lot of BS)

Military breakdown

Anytime a service person dies it's tragic and both side of the political fence should feel ashamed to use it as a weapon to further the 'spin'.

Take a look at the real numbers.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
This is politics at it's very worst, using the deaths of our military servicemen and women to try to gain political points is beyond scum.

Please do not tarnish the memories of these honorable souls by trying to turn their sacrifice into votes.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
RRConservative, you MUST be paid to say stupidities like that, it's impossible that someone is so brainwashed that politics is a debate between who's the worst between democrats and republicans, and that kind of stuff.

Seriously, RRConservative, you're a government bot, or you're working at Fox News.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   


Well, well, the truth finally comes out and the anti-war people scatter like roaches in the light.


[sarcasm]
NO! NO! IT CANT BE TRUE! NOT OUR BELOVED CLINTON! [/sarcasm]

However, I know this will not be the case forever.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This is a most despicable comparison of apples and oranges. Please add back in the non-hostile action military deaths back into Bush's figures.

Then also talk about the men and women coming home without limbs or facial features. At the same time much was made about Janet Jackson's exposed breast at the SuperBowl, how much was made of the troops' missing body parts?

War is hell, buddy. And that's the reason nations should avoid it.

Also, beware those who call an enemy cowardly.
"A fatal mistake in war is to underrate the strength, feeling and resources of an enemy." General W.T. Sherman, 1861
The cowards on one side of this war are those who knew the facts and failed to stand up to the WhiteHouse in its war of words. The cowards on the other side are those who deny the facts and send others to shed their blood.

War is hell. You don't want to go there.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   


Well, well, the truth finally comes out and the anti-war people scatter like roaches in the light.

What about we say both are traitors, warmongerers and enemies of america? I bet you can't say the truth about your beloved Bush, you're too brainwashed into the left-right fake paradigm.


I bet you can't.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Well, well, the truth finally comes out and the anti-war people scatter like roaches in the light.

What about we say both are traitors, warmongerers and enemies of america? I bet you can't say the truth about your beloved Bush, you're too brainwashed into the left-right fake paradigm.


I bet you can't.


I don't know about him, but I can say it. Why do people think that if I'm anti-Bush I must have been pro-Clinton. I trashed talked Clinton through his entire presidency because he is just as bad as Bush, Clinton is just more charismatic. But they are both traitors, warmongerers and enemies of the U.S.

Vas



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Why would you present the information like that? Its rather deceptive.

You are taking the number of military personel that died while clinton was in office, whether it was a soldier being shot by serbs in the balkans, or dying in a car accident in nebraska, over 8 years, and comparing it to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan over 3 years.


It had BETTER be a higher death tally with teh 8 year any cause, anywhere, Clinton data than with the 3 year, only in iraq and afghanistan, Bush data.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Well, well, the truth finally comes out and the anti-war people scatter like roaches in the light.

What about we say both are traitors, warmongerers and enemies of america? I bet you can't say the truth about your beloved Bush, you're too brainwashed into the left-right fake paradigm.


I bet you can't.


...Coming from one of the most radical left wing posters on ATS LOL


BUT to be fair Vitchilo, you would need to count all deaths under Bush - that is in Afghanistan and else where if your going to count all of the deaths under Clinton.

Either way, I have said it again and again, this is the easies war we ever fought. 3k dead is honestly nothing after taking over 2 countries. How many ruskies died ATTEMPTING to take the Afghans? .. When the war first began a reporter asked a General if he expected this to be like Vietnam .. his response "Hell no, the Vietnamese could shoot" - Arabs pose no threat to us, their tactics work only to stir political movements on the home front to further individual needs. Do you think H Clinton cares about Iraqis?
Please.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   


...Coming from one of the most radical left wing posters on ATS LOL

So I have this title now?




BUT to be fair Vitchilo, you would need to count all deaths under Bush - that is in Afghanistan and else where if your going to count all of the deaths under Clinton.

To see which of Bush or Clinton is the biggest enemy of US and the human specie?



Either way, I have said it again and again, this is the easies war we ever fought. 3k dead is honestly nothing after taking over 2 countries.

Well, that's what happen when technology are getting better, and that far more advanced countries in terms of military attack another.


How many ruskies died ATTEMPTING to take the Afghans?

Well in 9 years of occupation, 15.000 death, but this was when the US was hugely financing the resistance, which Russia is not doing in Iraq nor Afghanistan, so you can't compare the two.


When the war first began a reporter asked a General if he expected this to be like Vietnam .. his response "Hell no, the Vietnamese could shoot" - Arabs pose no threat to us, their tactics work only to stir political movements on the home front to further individual needs.

Well he was right, until the US, UK, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped the resistance, then they had big loses. What do you think would happen if all big countries would supply Iraqi and Afghan resistance? The same thing that happenned to the soviet army.


Do you think H Clinton cares about Iraqis? Please.

Did I ever said that?
Hillary is as bad as Bush, Bill, Gingrich, ect... all traitors, except Ron Paul.

Do you think i'm some kind of Bill Clinton supporter or what?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Its like I'm watching the O'Riely factor.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Ok, well I just have a quick question here.

Did'nt the stuf in Kosovo and Eastern Europe where we involved
oursleves happen at this time?

Beyond that though, you should be ashamed of yourself for using
the deaths of those who served to add further spin to the topic and
make yourself feel better about your own warped lille views.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
RRConservative how dare you try to use the deaths of American soldiers to further your agenda and win an argument. Don't you know that only liberals are allowed to cram deaths of American soldiers down people’s throats to further their own agenda. Next thing you will be botching jokes about how stupid American soldiers are. Who do you think you are anyway? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
@MooneyBravo

This is a touchy subject, isn't it?

The same people that are accusing me of "using" military deaths to further an agenda, are the same ones getting ready to hype #4,000. Just like they partied when we hit 1,000-2,000-3,000. These are the same people that pointed out when the Military dead equaled those who where murdered on 9/11.

These people are definately in need of perspective.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
RRConservative how dare you try to use the deaths of American soldiers to further your agenda and win an argument. Don't you know that only liberals are allowed to cram deaths of American soldiers down people’s throats to further their own agenda. Next thing you will be botching jokes about how stupid American soldiers are. Who do you think you are anyway? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Precisely. Well said. It seems that in some people's mind's, the authority to politicize US military casualties rests soley with those against the current US foreign policy in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I should add, however, that this particular Bush/Clinton comparison is skewed and inappropriate.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why would you present the information like that? Its rather deceptive.

You are taking the number of military personel that died while clinton was in office, whether it was a soldier being shot by serbs in the balkans, or dying in a car accident in nebraska, over 8 years, and comparing it to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan over 3 years.


It had BETTER be a higher death tally with teh 8 year any cause, anywhere, Clinton data than with the 3 year, only in iraq and afghanistan, Bush data.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]


It compares peacetime deaths in Clintons 1st 4 years compared to the War dead of Bush's 3+ years. It's a very good comparision.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   


posted by Abbadon777

Now that is a lot of spin!
siadapp.dior.whs.mil...]Military breakdown

Anytime a service person dies it's tragic and both sides of the political fence should feel ashamed to use it as a weapon to further the 'spin.'
Take a look at the real numbers. [Edited by Don W]



Here follows some real numbers:

Under His Eminence Ronnie Reagan, darling of the Right Wing Neo Cons,
Year . . . Died
1981, 2,380
1982, 2,319
1983. 2,465
1984, 1,999
1985, 2,252
1986, 1,984
1987, 1,983
1988, 1,819
1989, 128 - 08% of year’s total, charging Reagan with January only.

Under President Clinton, 1,213 died in 1993, and the number per year steadily declined until in his last full year, 2000, 758 died while in service.

OTOH, Under BlunderBush, America’s first designated president, a mere 831 died while in service in 2001, but by 2004, the last year of this chart, 1,887 men and women died while in service.

I don’t know what to make of these numbers, perhaps the Neo Cons can tell us?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
OK, whos going to take the bait and start listing military deaths against all former presidents? Anyone want to tally up Lincoln's? How about Wilson? Roosevelt? Truman? Johnson? This is nonsense, regardless of which political party you back. As I said before, these comparisons are not equitable or appropriate.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
A certain somebody “discovers” a list of numbers and not knowing what the numbers really represent, runs off like the proverbial chicken sans its head and looking backwards - not the chicken, but the somebody - as always, sees only how others have also endured losses on their watches. But it is one thing to die in an auto crash and quite another thing to die by IED - improvised explosive devices. And this distinction the somebody seems to have missed or worse, to have purposely ignored for wicked purposes?

More numbers for your consideration:

Year . . Died
1993, 1,120 - Note: I used 92% of the number, excluding January.
1994, 1,075
1995, 1,040
1996, 974
1997, 817
1998, 827
1999, 736
2000, 758
2001, 64 - Note: I used 08% of the number, including only January.

Total: 7,411 died while in service. This number does not differentiate how many died of war or combat, natural causes, accident or otherwise.

Year . . Died
2001, 767 - Note: I used 92% of the number, excluding January.
2002, 999
2003, 1,410
2004, 1,887

Total: 5,063 died while in service. This number does not differentiate how many died of war or combat, natural causes, accident or otherwise.

Note the sharp increase in the 2002 deaths. This was when we first “hit” Afghan.

It is very significant to me at least, that between 1980 and 1995, actually 16 years, that the number of suicides in the military services ran consistently in the low 200s. Each and every year. That seems like a lot to me, especially because of the youth of the military personnel.

Any thoughts on why this should be so?



[edit on 2/21/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join