Interesting

[Bender222]

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. Military losses, 1980 through 2006

(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006

1980 ............. 2,392 (Carter Year)

1981 ............. 2,380 (Reagan Year)

1984 ............. 1,999 (Reagan Year)

1988 ............. 1,819 (Reagan Year)

1989 ............ 1,636 (George H W Year)

1990 ............ 1,508 (George H W Year)

1991 ............ 1,787 (George H W Year)

1992 ............ 1,293 (George H W Year)

1993 ............. 1,213 ( Clinton Year)

1994 ............. 1,075 ( Clinton Year)

1995 ............. 2,465 ( Clinton Year)

1996 ............. 2,318 ( Clinton Year)

1997 ................ 817 ( Clinton Year)

1998 ............. 2,252 ( Clinton Year)

1999 ............. 1,984 ( Clinton Year)

2000 ..............1,983 ( Clinton Year)

2001 ................ 890 (George W Year)

2002 .............. 1,007 (George W Year)

2003 .............. 1,410 (George W Year)

2004 .............. 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 ................ 919 (George W Year)

2006................. 920 (George W Year)

2007..................899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths

George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I.

These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities, only second to Clinton year of 1995 with 2,465 deaths! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report.

Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:

European descent ...............................69.12%

Hispanic ............................................. 12.5%

Black ...................................................12.3%

Asian .................................................... 3.7%

Native American ....................................1.0%

Other ......................................................2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) ................74.31%

Hispanic .......................................... 10.74%

Black ................................................ 9.67%

Asian ................................................ 1.81%

Native American .............................. 1.09%

Other ............................................... 0.33%

I was surprised again. . . until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political purposes and gain).

Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some current politicians are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Bill Clinton's and his comments just recently made about South Carol ina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, we might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, had more soldiers die during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama bin Laden when we actually had him detained.

We should strongly hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the divi ders from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners (Yes, Hillary.. . Yes Bill ... Yes, Barack .... Yes, John ..., Yes, Ralph ... we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation.

Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it.

Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492

[jkerouac]

Wow. You really piqued my curiosity. The link to the pdf is broken. So I went to the Federation of American Scientists web site to find out who these guys are. After poking around a bit I did find the following:

Spam Email on Military Losses

Here is another discussion of this information from Army Times: E-mail on military deaths is shaky on facts

[Guest carlsbadrolex]

Thank you, try again... Most of these figures are WAY off. And what I find most interesting is the author would be stupid enough to give the source of the figures. Did he think people WOULD NOT check his numbers?

Total CROCK OF CRAP!

[Bender222]

I somehow recieved the email and thought it was interesting so i posted it here. SO, now that we see that the data isincorect what does the correct data detail?