You'd be surprised !
These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
2007-11-07 02:22:12 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Here is an example of what happens with defense cuts, many were friends of mine. I would like to think why none of my subordinates was our safety procedures. During the Carter years we lost over 9,000 troops to training deaths due to lack of funding for the military. This was done in just 4 years. Here we are in a war with two fronts and have not come close to this figure throughout the entire current administration. The numbers from 1977 – 1979 were higher although I cannot find the accurate totals. If you notice the trend of deaths you will see that funding provided by the Reagan Administration began to change our safety midway through his first term. This trend continued all the way to the Clinton Administration was the lowest deaths were recorded. His Administration made many great contributions to safety in the military which was why I voted for him to a second term. When you compare the number of years with President Bush (6 years) with a 2 front war to the Carter period (4 years) without a war you can see why the military is scared to death (literally) to see another severe cutback to our funding. These figures are not published enough by anybody on the YA or in the media, bottom line is more military were killed by overwork physically and overstressed equipment due to funding cutbacks. Those who were adults during the Carter years and who oppose this war have no idea that more have died in peacetime during funding cuts than both the Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghanistan War combined and done so in so far three quarters of the time
2007-11-07 02:31:10 · answer #1 · answered by rance42 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Looks like Bush the way I'm reading it.
Clinton had very few deaths attributed to hostile activity.
2007-11-07 02:46:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is "NO".
According to the link that you provided, 7680 military deaths occurred from 1993 to 2000 inclusive. (Clinton's term). 9550 occurred from 2001 to 2006 inclusive. That nearly 2000 more for Bush in 6 years vs 8 years for Clinton.
2007-11-07 02:36:28 · answer #3 · answered by Mark B 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
How did that happen? Was there some sort of secret war going on?
I checked out the link, almost 2000 troops died every year under the con's man-god, Reagan. Much more than Clinton.
How come you didn't mention that?
2007-11-07 02:31:52 · answer #4 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, after using a calculator and realizing bush has two more years of data to add....
Bush is the winner, hands down.
2007-11-07 02:41:23 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you read the statistics completely or did you just pick and chose? More Americans were killed by hostile action with Bush than with Clinton. Statistics are only as good as the person that reads them. Check your facts first.
2007-11-07 02:32:46 · answer #6 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I agree, but some may see the deaths under Bush as wrongful uneeded deaths
2007-11-07 02:27:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes, and during "peace time" too.
Some would argue that there were more deaths BY the Clintons than under them...makes you wonder what this country is coming to when that question is out there and we have one of them running for office...again...
2007-11-07 02:29:19 · answer #8 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
Don't believe everything you read...especially in these halls.
2007-11-07 02:25:57 · answer #9 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Doesn't seem so.
2007-11-07 02:38:51 · answer #10 · answered by LatexSolarBeef 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋