Interesting stats on Military deaths :
Below is some very interesting data referencing deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor will
you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will encourage you to enlighten folks around you as to the brave and courageous young people
serving in our military.

Deaths in the Military
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 ......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 ......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 ......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 ......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 ......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 ......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ......... 1,040
1996 .............974
1997 .............817
1998 .............826
1999 .............795
2000 .............774
2001 .............890
2002 ......... 1,007
2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]
2004 ......... 1,887 [900*]
2005 ........... [919*]
2006 .......... [920*]

Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures--especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting.

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong again! The last U.S.A. census shows the following ethnic distribution among the total U.S. population:

European descent (white) ... 69.12%
Hispanic .... 12.5%
African American ..... 12.3%
Asian .... 3.7%
Native American .... 1.0%
Other ..... 2.6%

The distribution among total combat service related fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European descent (white) ....74.31%
Hispanic.....10.74%
African American .. 9.67%
Asian ..... 1.81%
Native American ....1.09%
Other .... 2.33%

These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf>
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

 

I just did some quick searching and found some more interesting statistics.

Broken down from 1980 - 1999 in types of deaths.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus...ry_deaths.html

Same numbers you have above, but with the number of members of the military so you can see actual percentage...since that almost matters more than raw numbers.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/c...peacetime-rate

 

Interesting stats OnBelay.

Per your comments later in the thread, there was a study not long ago by the Heritage Foundation (IIRC, if not something similar) concerning a lot of the demographics and such on the military.

Despite the statements often seen about the military being poor, undereducated, minorities, etc the study found much the opposite. Above average education, income levels, racial mixes and such. IIRC one of the statements they made was that were the military didn't properly represent a slice of the US was only due to the fact that it exceeded that standard.

Maybe if the politicians and naysayers within the public would open their eyes, they would have understood long ago that on average the people in the military exceed the standards expected.

 

If the American people saw this kind of information every day instead of the rhetoric that is shoved down our throats, there might be some pride in this country.

Great information. I didn't know this. It certianly puts things in perspective.

Thanks!

 

..x2

 

 

I'm not understanding this.

Military losses are about the same in 2006 as they were in 1980 and this is considered 'good news'?

Let's look at these numbers:
US vehicle fatalities 1980 - 43,945
US vehicle fatalities 2006 - 43,443 (just about the same as 1980)

US vehicle fatalities alcohol related 1980 - 26,173
US vehicle fatalities alcohol related 2006 - 16,885 (9,000 less)

How many of those 9,000 do you think were young men in uniform?
MADD formed in 1980.
Drinking age raised to 21 in 1984
Military abandons it's wink&nod approach to alcohol

The years listed in the post above show a steady decline in the accidental loss of life for our military over the years.

I do not believe you can compare the sacrifice of combat losses with accidental highway carnage twentyfive years ago and say no difference same/same, we're looking good.

Please do not put forth this callous argument while parents and spouses grieve.

 

What are you talking about driving fatalities for? Maybe i'm wrong but I read the entire post and got nothing about drinking and driving. This is the take I have; the liberal media is continually reporting we are losing this war and american casualties are high. Simple fact is we are at war and soldiers are going to die. We should be thankful we have a volunteer military willing to die for our freedom. You will not hear on liberal media that less soldiers have died during this war time than in times of "peace".
Good post. The numbers really are unbeilieveable. Thank you to all the soldiers protecting our freedom!

 

What I am saying is the war casualties are what they are.
It is disingenuous to dismiss them as 'low' by comparing the total to previous years when the type of loss was different.

In the 1980's soldiers, sailors and marines died in alcohol related accidents at a rate of about 700 per year.

Prior to 2003, the Alch. related deaths declined to less than 250 per year.

What I got from the original post was that 80's military losses and losses today are the same and this is somehow good news, unbelievable good news.
That the war is practically free, in terms of loss of life as if the same number would have died anyway, and I do not believe that is correct.

Someone is trying to turn a profit at the expense of the hard work of 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'.

I thought that was insane and felt like stating so.
Not asking you to agree.

Just offering another viewpoint.

 

If you believe it is not correct, please disprove the theory.

Alcohol deaths vs. war deaths were not the debate, please do not muddy the waters.

The facts tell you: Our military is capable of rucking up, going to work and doing their job. (For those unfamiliar, "rucking up" is the term for putting on your back pack, grabbing your weapon, and moving out)

To bring in alcohol deaths and MADD is clearly an attempt to confuse the situation and deny the truth.
It would be less obfuscating to state that the military "needs" to be at war to keep themselves safe, and to conclude that if they are busy waging war they are safer than when they are training or "at peace".

 

Let's not forget that if these folks weren't at war, they'd be training. Training accidents happen and people die. It's a fact of life. While I was out training in the desert in California, a flash flood happened that flipped over a HMMWV pinning one Marine under it in the water. He drowned in a desert. It sucks, but it was a training accident, which happens.

The war isn't free from loss of life. That isn't the purpose of this thread at all. However, the media likes to portray that the loss of life is much more than it is and that if we were to bring all our "Boys" home, then they'd stop dying. This isn't true, they'd simply die another way most likely.

But if you want to play the MADD card, then let's remember a few other things. While these guys are over there...they aren't driving POV's (Personally Owned Vehicles) and IIRC in the Muslim nations, the military aren't allowed to drink. So there would be a decline in drunk driving deaths in the military for sure. Bring them home, and they get to drink again...and possibly drive too.

Here's some other interesting stats...look at battle deaths.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/44965.html

 

I'll try one more time and let it go.

Your numbers show a decline in fatalties from 1980 to 2002.
This mirrors the decline in alcohol related vehicle deaths, which is the number one killer of military personnel since Vietnam.

Your numbers show a spike from 2003 - present that return it to 1980 levels.
The thread indicates that our military losses today are about the same as 1980 so what is the big deal and why doesn't the liberal media report it?

Bottom line, KIA means KIA and it is disingenious to hide the numbers.
I'm not accussing you of trying to spin something, just asking that you take a second look.

 

Excellent point. But the point here is that the media trys to portray the fact that people are dying only because of the war and that if we end the war, our military folks will stop dying. That's their spin. We just want the spin to stop and see accurate reporting. Like that will ever happen.

Why didn't media didn't report the fatalities before the war...because those deaths weren't important?

 

Military fatalities without war aren't much different than any other group, construction workers, garbagemen, nurses, etc...

And the military did report every year it's major successes in reducing [alcohol related] traffic fatalities. Those efforts, civilian efforts, changes in attitude, probably saved 10,000 military lives over the last 25 years.

When I was in the service, military clubs were subsidized by your tax dollars.
We had nickel&dime night the Friday before payday because everyone was broke. 5 cent beers and 10 cent mixed drinks do not even cover the broken glassware. Unit funds were used for giant keg parties. I unloaded alcohol from military trucks with a friggin forklift.
Some of my NCOs had liquid lunches at the club.
Those days are long gone, they would be career killers today for any who partook or condoned.

Anyway my take is the 'number' is what it is.
The media can't spin it up and nobody can spin it down.