military deaths Bush / clinton

[marks2065 0]

wow i was shocked. not much difference between the 2 and Clinton wasn't at war.

clevelandsearch.com/Military-Deaths.html

www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp


i guess clinton years were just as deadly

[Amazon 7]

Quote

i guess clinton years were just as deadly

And you GUESSED Wrong.

From the Snopes article you yourself posted.

Bush the 2nd

8792 so far with NO numbers for 2007 and 2008

Lets not forget the VERY high numbers of former GI's who are blowing their brains out now that they are back from war

Clinton

7500



Face it.. being in the military can be dangerous... some in the military get to do some pretty dangerous stuff...train under lousy conditions.. and DUDE.. shit happens. Seriving your country is dangerous even in "peace time"

Aint statistics a BITCH

[marks2065 0]

the point is clinton had 7500 deaths and no war, bush has a lot less than reagan.
7500 deaths and no war? makes you wonder doesn't it ?

[DJL 235]

Quote

the point is clinton had 7500 deaths and no war, bush has a lot less than reagan.
7500 deaths and no war? makes you wonder doesn't it ?

I think Kenneth Foster was somehow involved.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,989]

>7500 deaths and no war? makes you wonder doesn't it ?

I knew it! Clinton's minions were eating US servicemen. It's the only possible explanation.

WHY hasn't the liberal media asked him about who has been eating US servicemen?

WHY has Clinton never discussed his policies on military cannibalism?

WHY has the truth been kept from us?

HOW LONG does he think he can get away with cannibalism?

WHEN will Americans wake up to the TRUTH?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

wow i was shocked. not much difference between the 2 and Clinton wasn't at war.

clevelandsearch.com/Military-Deaths.html

www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp


i guess clinton years were just as deadly

So what you're saying is that Clinton isn't a military hater after all....I get it. Another statistic about military cuts is that GWB cut about as many troops as Clinton did. Not to mention military pay raises under Clinton were considerably higher than under Fascist Ronnie. Lot of mistruths out there, huh?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

the point is clinton had 7500 deaths and no war, bush has a lot less than reagan.
7500 deaths and no war? makes you wonder doesn't it ?

No the point is being in the military is dangerous.

ALSO how many people were in the military during each one of those administrations???

What was the rate of deaths per thousand during each of those administrations????


Did you spend any time in the military to base your assumptions on??

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

wow i was shocked. not much difference between the 2 and Clinton wasn't at war.

clevelandsearch.com/Military-Deaths.html

www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp


i guess clinton years were just as deadly

So what you're saying is that Clinton isn't a military hater after all....I get it. Another statistic about military cuts is that GWB cut about as many troops as Clinton did. Not to mention military pay raises under Clinton were considerably higher than under Fascist Ronnie. Lot of mistruths out there, huh?

That's not really stating the whole story either. One issue is that military pay can't be too high because we can't have our soldiers driving expensive cars and then saying "No need to re-enlist" I already have bank. The payback comes in compensation in the form of health care and pensions. Next, the Reagan era was a recession along with a large standing military. High pay increases would have been impossible and considering the job market the competition wasn't there. The Clinton era was during a boom when we were having a lot of trouble keeping the people we had put so much money into training for the modern smaller technology driven miltary just to have them leave for high paying private sector jobs.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

i guess clinton years were just as deadly

And you GUESSED Wrong.

From the Snopes article you yourself posted.

Bush the 2nd

8792 so far with NO numbers for 2007 and 2008

Lets not forget the VERY high numbers of former GI's who are blowing their brains out now that they are back from war

Clinton

7500



Face it.. being in the military can be dangerous... some in the military get to do some pretty dangerous stuff...train under lousy conditions.. and DUDE.. shit happens. Seriving your country is dangerous even in "peace time"

Aint statistics a BITCH

Not so fast. You can't have it both ways.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Not so fast. You can't have it both ways.

Yes I can.. I am a female

[airdvr 210]

Thanks...that made me laugh

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

i guess clinton years were just as deadly

Only if you place a much higher value on mostly white Americans than mostly brown foreigners.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

the point is clinton had 7500 deaths and no war, bush has a lot less than reagan.
7500 deaths and no war? makes you wonder doesn't it ?

It wasn't like our military wasn't doing anything during Clinton's presidency. There was Somalia, Bosnia, the bombing of the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, as well as base closures and having to operate on much less money. Just because bullets aren't flying doesn't mean our service members are on the beach sipping a pretty drink with an umbrella in it.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

i guess clinton years were just as deadly

Only if you place a much higher value on mostly white Americans than mostly brown foreigners.

what made me wonder is how did that many military persons die with no war? was it because of militant attacks on us? if so why didn't we defend ourselves. was our military that open to attacks because of poor management? granted the numbers aren't in for all of Bush's term but there isn't the large disparity that you would think since we are at war now and weren't under Clinton.
I would understand if the numbers were 10000 for bush and 1000 for Clinton, but they're not. I think the numbers show that we are going to loose soldiers wether we are at war or not and a passive military is open to attacks that are just as devistating as taking the war to the bad guys.

[downwardspiral 0]

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

No. Our military just trains that hard. What I did while I was in was fucking insane as I'm sure others have had similar experience.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

What you fail to understand is that military members are just like anyone else in society. We get into car crashes. There are suicides. There are freak accidents. And believe it or not some have even died skydiving (both rec and training). You seem to think 7500 is a very large number when, in fact, its not. I know the Air Force alone has in the neighbourhood of 300,000 members. Tally that to the population of the Army, Marines, Coasties, Navy and you have quite a massive number of people there that encompases "the military".

Muff #5048

[Amazon 7]

Quote

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

Did you even look at the statistics??


In any population ( civilian or military) you will have all kinds of incidents resulting in mortality.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Table 5 is instructive

Please note the Accident, Illness, and Self Inflicted columns

Military persons are just as prone to SHIT HAPPENS in thier lives as all the rest of us...but there is added risk doing things like jumping out of airplanes at night.. flying very close to the ground at high speeds at night... other fun things like rapelling down cliffs..These are all non-combat.

Please take note of the HOSTILE ACTION column.. there seems to be a slight increase there for some reason between the two administrations.. I wonder why that might be???

I hope you get my drift.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>That's not really stating the whole story either. One issue is that military pay can't be too high because we can't have our soldiers driving expensive cars and then saying "No need to re-enlist" I already have bank.

OK, so then both Bush's overpaid the troops then. My point was that Mister Cold War Reagan paid the troops he claimed to love so much, less then Clinton and the Bush's paid about the same as each other.

Point is, Clinton is this military hater that the right likes to claim.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Next, the Reagan era was a recession along with a large standing military.

Reagan added many troops to the roster, that's my point and when he did he decided paying them less than so-called military hater Clinton would do in later years was a good idea.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>High pay increases would have been impossible and considering the job market the competition wasn't there.

Civilian enterprise has little to do with military pay, if anything. Since military pay is so low anyway, thre isn;t a great deal of difference from pres to pres.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Clinton era was during a boom when we were having a lot of trouble keeping the people we had put so much money into training for the modern smaller technology driven miltary just to have them leave for high paying private sector jobs.


These are all nice guesses of yours, but they have several flaws. Troop numbers were intentionally decreased during the GHWB and Clinton years, so troop retention wasn't an issue. Furthermore, during GHWB's term, he paid more than Clintonb would and way more than fascist Ronnie did and he enjoyed a recession most of his term.

But thanks, keep the guesses rolling, they're fun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

Bingo

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

There are no politicians on training missions or in war zones, training mishaps occur all the time, look at all the skydivng training deaths.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

Why not take a look at the table that was referenced in your own Snopes link if you want to know the breakdown?

According to the people you're citing deaths directly due to hostile military and terrorist actions were 76 during all 8 Clinton years and 2,600+ during only the first 6 Bush years. So what was your point again?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

training accidents mainly. We lost 40 Marines one night due to a mid-air collision between an AH-1 Cobra and a CH-46 Sea Knight full of infantry.

7500 in training accidents? was our military that bad? maybe the democrats are not that good at protecting us or the military personel.

What you fail to understand is that military members are just like anyone else in society. We get into car crashes. There are suicides. There are freak accidents. And believe it or not some have even died skydiving (both rec and training). You seem to think 7500 is a very large number when, in fact, its not. I know the Air Force alone has in the neighbourhood of 300,000 members. Tally that to the population of the Army, Marines, Coasties, Navy and you have quite a massive number of people there that encompases "the military".

Very good point.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Pegandmeg 0]

I don't really feel like reading all the responses to the op, so maybe someone has already pointed this out. Look at the statistics of military killed due to hostile action under Clinton's term and the first 6 years of Bush's term. You'll see that Clinton only had 1 death due to hostile action in all 8 years. Bush had close to 3k in the first 6 years. Bush also had 30k wounded during that time. 30k!!

Here's my link. Look on pages 8 and 9. Tables 5 and 6, I think.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf