Did you know that there were 4417 military peacetime deaths between 1993 and 1996?

Question

So would you rather fight in a war under Bush or train on under-funded equipment under Clinton?

Hey Brick, you're right, that's just military! So how many civilians died in the US during those same years? Maybe Iraq is safer!

syd ... didn't you see Thomas M's post? Apparently he didn't get the message.

Answer 1

Just like my family is doing right now...fighting a war under Bush. What I don't get is WHY DO AMERICANS THINK THE U.S. SOLDIERS ARE KILLING PEOPLE IN IRAQ, WHEN THEY'RE KILLING EACH OTHER OVER RELIGION? They'd be doing that even if we were not there. I guess the ones who are 'just followers' and are not independent thinkers...because they can't think for themselves, are the ones that believe we are killing the Iraqis. That's what they get for being liberals. They only know HALF the story.

Answer 2

nicely females many times loose their virginities at age sixteen. So in case you have been born in 1993 then you actual are sixteen yet you do no longer inevitably ought to loose it, information is what says a woman many times looses her virginity. and at 1996 thats 13 years previous. I advise keep your ideas on being happy by means of fact the age you're by means of fact so some distance that's your loose existence til your 18 have faith me. in any case in case you for some reason sense such as you should loose it use protection and not in any respect pay attention to the previous "nothings going to ensue if we dont use protection" thats a lie.

Answer 3

there were a series of Nato and UN obligations that these men died for and served their country for...Serbia and Somalia included...there may be 10,000 total dead with Bush (I think it's about 7,000) now...The real problem I have with Bush is that he is not working with the world community and continues to isolate the US from the rest of civilization...if we really need help in 10 years, will anyone answer our call?

This 4417 is from all sort of deaths including illness and vehicle accidents, Bush's non-Iraq numbers may be a little less because there are actually fewer non-active men outside a war theater, the rest are actually getting killed by the enemy

How many US policemen died in the states in that time period? I would guess alot...extrapolating from the the site at about 60 a year, that would be 480 in 8 years and that does not include off duty deaths or illnesses

Answer 4

More people die from gang violence in L.A. county everyday than soldiers in Iraq. Drunk drivers kill more people everyday than soldiers in Iraq. I am not low rating the deaths in Iraq, I am so proud of those guys fighting over there. I am just saying why dosent media put it in perspective and maybe everyone wouldn't be so quick to cut and run.

Answer 5

You do know there were over 20,000 peace time deaths under Reagan alone, don't you. Clinton had nothing to do with those deaths. And, you should ask the soldiers if they would rather serve under Bush or Clinton. I know many many officers personally, who have been over to Iraq 2 times, some of them have been there 3 times. And, everyone of them hate Bush and think he is a traitor and they are convinced he is a psychopath. All of them said they know why they were sent to IRaq, and it has nothing to do with terrorism since they were over there protecting the oil wells for Kellogg Brown and Root.

Answer 6

Clinton had troops scattered all around the globe, in dangerous countries like kuwait (especially after the gulf war!) and Africa...

Bush, during his 2000 campaign made it clear that he would reposition them to places we actually need them...

when he was elected.. he brought many of them back to America... and many he positioned in the persian gulf.. to enforce sanctions set on Iraq and to have good position on Saddam...

thats one of the reasons we quickly eliminated Saddam from power and did it with VERY little casualties...

3,000 casualties in 3 1/2 years of fighting an "invisable" enemy who has PERFECTED the "guerilla war" tactic and is bloody merciless...

AND an entire war on a Country led by a dictatorship...

THATS INCREDIBLE! we should be PROUD of the fact we removed Saddam so absolutely brilliantly...

BUT that would be like campaigning for the Republicans in 08.. and they Dem's cant do THAT!!!!

Answer 7

Neither. Clinton did horrible things, and so has Bush. Some conservatives only want to bash on Clinton, and some liberals only want to bash on Bush. We allow ourselves to be divided over unimportant things. If Bush had done all of the same things, but he had a (D) beside his name, the same people who defend him would be bashing him, and vice versa with Clinton. On the surface, Bush seems more evil, but deep down they are both liars and crooks with the same ultimate goals.

Answer 8

Liberals don't care and don't accept the truth. Liberals only care about statistics if they've been forged and support their cause..
Example... 2 gang bangers shoot each other over drugs.
Liberal media reports..Today 15 children were brutally murdered in a park playing with flowers and licking lollipops by a Christian gun man.
Next day they call for a ban on guns and religion.

Answer 9

I think if death per death were tallied, then Bush and his stupid war would win the death contest hands (and other body parts) down. Can you provide a breakdown as to how all 4,417 of those military people died. Like how many of them was from old age? I'll bet a good majority, loser.

You can't justify the war, so don't even try.

Answer 10

no. seems your numbers are wrong. try this.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm