From 1993-1996, there were about a thousand more military deaths than in the Iraq war. How can anyone say that our troops are suffering "massive" casualties when there have been less deaths than during four peacetime years under Clinton?
I wish the best for our troops and want them to succeed in their mission with as few losses as possible, but this leftist idea that they are "supporting them" by cutting off their funding and forcing them home is a joke. Our troops are doing an incredible job there under horrible circumstances, and they DESERVE our support, both verbally and financially, as well as our prayers.
Source: Department of Defense statistics
2007-02-21 05:35:08 · 17 answers · asked by mmilner_24 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bravo brother, Bravo....keep up the support for our troops, and the war. Moral is important in war time. The soldiers suffer when they here idiot protesters here at home, our troops have a job to do, let the do it.
2007-02-21 05:40:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
The war deaths in Iraq are in addition to those you claim! You think they stopped just because the war started? Can you guys get from point A to point B or are you always just going to find something that suits your purpose!
Our troops in Iraq are dying gruesome deaths and being sent to substandard medical facilities! How you make light of that with your yellow journalistic BS is beyond me!
Go over and get both of you legs removed by an IED and tell me what you think then!
No one is cutting off their funding! I hate liars! There may be restrictions on their funding to keep Bush from doing things he should bnot be doing with our troops. It has nothing to do with funding the troops, just not giving more to Bash's failed war policies! How dumb do you think we are?
The deaths in Iraq Are above and beyond any accidental or other deaths. and lets not use just 1993 to 1996!
For instance, from 1980 to 1989 the military averaged 2,123 deaths a year. Most from accidents (375 from hostile or terrorist activity). In 1991, 1,787 died on military duty. Of those 147 were KIA in the Gulf War.
One FACT you also seem to miss is the size of our military back then as compared to today!!
2007-02-21 06:06:04 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistic inflation is sure popular these days, with a lot more things than military casualties. All politicians are fond of making big deals out of "shocking" crime statistics that have actually been falling for years. As soon as people stop being shocked and demand real information, this kind of bs will stop working.
So I guess the leftists are just working with what they have when they use reports of "massive" casualties to further their goals. I don't think they or anyone wants to hurt the American troops; they're more concerned with the non-Americans that the troops are hurting, and people on both sides being hurt indirectly by the war.
2007-02-21 05:47:27 · answer #3 · answered by skatc 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, because it's incomplete. It's obviously not casualty figures. It would have to be non combat related deaths from around the world during that period of time. If you really want to make an apples to apples comparison tell us how many non combat deaths there have been since March of 2003.
BTW, you might also explain how playing political games with casualty figures is supporting the troops.
2007-02-21 05:50:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
First of all we are suffering horrendous casualities. We have over 25,000. Casualties are not only the number dead but wounded as well.
I am not getting this argument at all. I know it is the new conservative story to latch onto but it makes little sense. You do realize there are people who are against the war. Am I supposed to support the war somehow because only 3,000 american soldiers have died over there. It just looks like your trivializing those that have given there lives. Body count isn't the issue its the reason behind the war for me. The fact that a smaller number relative to other wars of our military have died does not make this war just in my eyes.
2007-02-21 05:44:14 · answer #5 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
journalists do no longer roam around in Iraq. that's lots too risky. they're embedded with the troops, or holed up in motel rooms with some Iraqi helpers reporting what's happening, so that they have got been no longer able to checklist on those issues. notwithstanding, international businesses linked to the U.N. have tried to tally the casualties of the war. they have expected the dying toll to be around a million, in line with danger greater. this would not comprise the even greater effective sort of wounded. that's stated via the media, notwithstanding it relies upon on which paper you study and which channel you watch. you will in no way pay attention it stated on Fox information, that's for valuable. Networks like CNN and MSNBC have stated in this, additionally on the form of refugees. study the manhattan circumstances, the Boston Globe, the l. a. circumstances. that's expected that 2 million Iraqi families have left their residences, are actually on the borders of Iran or in Syria. relatively Iraqi lives are basically as significant as American lives, notwithstanding that's basically approximately impossible to tally up the numbers interior the devastation in Iraq. that's stated that each and each kinfolk has lost one member or greater to the war or had a kinfolk member injured. There are orphaned babies without orphanages, elderly without one to look after them, and few medical doctors left to look after the wounded and ill.
2016-10-02 12:20:46 · answer #6 · answered by poehlein 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton had the lowest amount of deaths for a President since 1980. Your statistics are completely misleading. And a little research shows this.
But you have to factor in COMBAT deaths, as opposed to natural deaths or training deaths.
2007-02-21 05:46:33 · answer #7 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
nice attempt at trivializing the deaths of our troops in Iraq.
by the way, have you attempted to add the accidental deaths in the past 6 years, the civilian deaths, and the active duty deaths, to the recent total?
after you do that, then compare it to Clinton years and see how it compares.
Statistics can say anything you want. too bad you want to believe the guy who is atempting to trivialize the deaths of people who you also claim to support because they are fighting for your freedom!
2007-02-21 05:42:12 · answer #8 · answered by jj 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Thousand more military deaths in Iraq from 1993-1996? What???????? US military were in Iraq during those years?
2007-02-21 05:42:14 · answer #9 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Don J--- you are a weak and ignorant S.O.B. Grow a pair and actually allow people to e mail you.
WE will never see that report on NBC. They tend to hide the truth with reporting of "real" news like Britney Spears and Anna Nichole.
2007-02-21 05:43:11 · answer #10 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋