|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 09:30:57 [Permalink]
|
Death Rates per 100,000 Soldiers
President | Carter | Reagan | Bush Sr | Clinton | W. Bush | Dems | Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Years | 1 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 18
Personnel | 2159630 | 2296792 | 2178309 | 1630573 | 1658652 | 1689357 | 2057749
All Deaths | 2392 | 17201 | 6223 | 7500 | 8792 | 9892 | 32216
Deaths/Year| 110.8 | 93.6 | 71.4 | 57.5 | 88.3 | 65.1 | 87.0
Accidental | 72.0 | 58.0 | 40.0 | 30.3 | 31.4 | 36.2 | 46.6
Hostile | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2.0 | C 0.0 | 26.1 | D 0.0 | 7.6
Homicide | 8.1 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 4.0 | 3.9
Illness | 19.4 | 17.1 | 13.0 | 10.7 | 13.4 | 12.0 | 15.2
Suicide | 10.7 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 9.6 | 11.5 | 10.6
Terror | A 0.0 | 1.6 | B 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.9
Unknown | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Actually 0.046
B) Actually 0.022
C) Actually 0.008
D) Actually 0.007 |
So, looking at things this way, we see that W's accidental death rate was actually 3.6% higher than Clinton's (who had the lowest rate over these 26 years of data). Reagan's accidental death rate was nearly twice Clinton's. And overall, the Republicans have about 29% more accidental deaths than Democrats.
In 2005, the age adjusted rate for accidental death was 39.1 per 100,000. For homicide, it was 6.1; for suicide it was 10.9, and it was 740.1 for disease.
What's to be surprised at, Bill? Wouldn't you expect peacetime soldiers to have lower morale? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 10:12:20 [Permalink]
|
Bngbuck wrote: | With two wars being fought in hostile counties for much of his tenure I would expect the causality rate for W to rise. My point was/is that I was surprised that the gap between Clinton and Bush was what it was. With two battle fronts going on concurrently I would expect W to lead in hostile casualties. |
These are not conventional wars. The war against Iraq was over in a matter of weeks. It ended once Sadam's government was permanently put out of commission. What we have now is an occupation. Many more deaths to American soldiers (not to mention the many more Iraqi civilian deaths!) are the result of the ethnic clashes which had been supressed by Saddam's regime and by terrorist who formally didn't exist in Iraq. In other words, the Bush administration has created more hostility within Iraq and against the USA through that action. From Wikipedia's entry on the Iraq War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War | All Iraqi violent deaths, Opinion Research Business. As of August 2007: 1,033,000 (946,000-1,120,000). Causes; gunshots (48%), car bombs (20%), aerial bombing (9%), accidents (6%), another blast/ordnance (6%) |
Then you have the war on terror. There is no "battle front" in a literal sense. There is a bunch of underground groups of terrorists, most of which are not organized with each other. You don't fight that kind of enemy with a conventional military assault.
And what the hell did overthrowing Saddam Hussein have to due with the war against Islamic terrorists? Nothing. What in US interests with regards to Saddam's Iraq was worth the deaths of one million Iraqi civilians? One million innocent men, women, and children, with no choice in the matter, who didn't exactly live in a free country, but at least under Saddam they knew what to do to survive and go about their lives in general peace. Now they have violent chaos, with enemies in shadows. Why are these peoples' lives given little mention by the media, while conservatives like you go on only about US servicemen and women - who made a voluntary choice to risk their lives. Give me an answer, Bill. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/28/2008 10:13:52 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 10:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
You said: Bngbuck wrote:
With two wars being fought in hostile counties for much of his tenure I would expect the causality rate for W to rise. My point was/is that I was surprised that the gap between Clinton and Bush was what it was. With two battle fronts going on concurrently I would expect W to lead in hostile casualties |
I did? Where in the world did I write that?
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking me in the geriatic eye
over the wrinkles and balding
on silent haunches, and then moves on.
Apologies to Carl Sandburg |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 16:48:08 [Permalink]
|
I think it would be interesting to see the death-rate for the civilian population (in the same age and gender weighted as the military).
I suspect that the casualty-rate (percentage-wise of the 'population') among the military is not much different from civilians. Car and equipment mishaps happen in civilian life too. I think Bill's "unexpected" high numbers of deaths under any president can be explained by military personnel being just as prone to accident (and/or sickness & 'otherwise' ) as any other human being.
Nothing to be surprised about.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 19:17:37 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Mab, if we just looked at 18-21 year olds, I suspect that the deaths due to accident or disease would be lower in the military than in the general population. There may be just as many accidents and diseases, but the military folks have better access to emergency rescue teams and doctors, so people won't die from those things as often. Some guy cleaning gutters who falls off the ladder and gets knocked out isn't likely to go unnoticed for eight hours while slowly bleeding out if he's on a military base living in barracks. For example.
But I don't have time to go looking for numbers right now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2008 : 19:45:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| What's to be surprised at, Bill? Wouldn't you expect peacetime soldiers to have lower morale? |
I guess what I wonder is why the suicide rate was above 20% durning the Clinton years? I would expect the suicide rate to be highest when personal are serving 3 and 4 tours with many seeing heavy combat during those tours. Yet the sucide rate is nearly 1/2 the rate of the Clinton years? At this point I am not ready to tag this to Clinton until I have some kind of idea why the high %.
President | Carter | Reagan | Bush Sr | Clinton | W. Bush | Dems | Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Years | 1 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 18
All Deaths | 2392 | 17201 | 6223 | 7500 | 8792 | 9892 | 32216
Deaths/Year| 2392 | 2150 | 1556 | 938 | 1465 | 1099 | 1790
Accidental | 65.05% | 61.93% | 56.03% | 52.71% | 35.54% | 55.69% | 53.59%
Hostile | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.73% | 0.01% | 29.53% | 0.01% | 8.77%
Homicide | 7.27% | 5.00% | 5.19% | 5.83% | 2.97% | 6.18% | 4.48%
Illness | 17.52% | 18.30% | 18.17% | 18.67% | 15.22% | 18.39% | 17.43%
Suicide | 9.66% | 11.78% | 15.27% | 20.29% | 10.92% | 17.72% | 12.22%
Terror | 0.04% | 1.70% | 0.03% | 1.00% | 0.63% | 0.77% | 1.09%
Unknown | 0.46% | 0.95% | 2.09% | 1.63% | 5.20% | 1.34% | 2.33% |
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/28/2008 20:12:26 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 19:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Marfknox.....
You said: Bngbuck wrote:
With two wars being fought in hostile counties for much of his tenure I would expect the causality rate for W to rise. My point was/is that I was surprised that the gap between Clinton and Bush was what it was. With two battle fronts going on concurrently I would expect W to lead in hostile casualties |
I did? Where in the world did I write that?
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking me in the geriatic eye
over the wrinkles and balding
on silent haunches, and then moves on.
Apologies to Carl Sandburg
|
I said it. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 20:01:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by marfknox |
| And what the hell did overthrowing Saddam Hussein have to due with the war against Islamic terrorists? Nothing. What in US interests with regards to Saddam's Iraq was worth the deaths of one million Iraqi civilians? One million innocent men, women, and children, with no choice in the matter, who didn't exactly live in a free country, but at least under Saddam they knew what to do to survive and go about their lives in general peace. Now they have violent chaos, with enemies in shadows. Why are these peoples' lives given little mention by the media, while conservatives like you go on only about US servicemen and women - who made a voluntary choice to risk their lives. Give me an answer, Bill. |
I agree, Marf. With hindsight being 20/20 I don't think the rewards have been worth the price in Iraq. We needed to finish the fight with Al Queada and the Taliban in Afghanistan before we ever considered opening up another front somewhere else. And now it looks as if Iran should have been that next front, but not an occupation to install a new government, instead an attack to take out any nuclear ambitions, and then vacate the premises.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 20:16:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I guess what I wonder is why the suicide rate was above 20% durning the Clinton years? |
It was only 20% among the dead, and only when all of W's shot soldiers are included in the calculations, skewing his suicide rate way down. In reality, the suicide rate was 9.6 per 100,000 soliders per year for W, and 11.7 for Clinton, about 22% higher. Neither number is grossly out of line with the suicide rate in the civilian population, either (Clinton's is 7% higher, W's is 12% lower).| I would expect the suicide rate to be highest when personal are serving 3 and 4 tours with many seeing heavy combat during those tours. Yet the sucide rate is nearly 1/2 the rate of the Clinton years? At this point I am not ready to tag this to Clinton until I have some kind of idea why the high %. |
You'll have to look into military psychology, then. I suspect that these people are trained to go out and accomplish missions against enemies. Sitting around on base with little to do but train and get yelled at by your superior officers probably puts a lot of stress on them that they wouldn't have on the front lines. There are different stressors, there, ones I think they're trained to enjoy to some extent.
Plus, if W didn't have these kids going out and getting killed, some of them probably would have killed themselves. Getting killed by a hostile action when you planned to off yourself the next day would move you from one category to the other.
Oh, and a huge proportion (compared to other Presidents) of W's dead soldiers haven't yet been classified as to cause-of-death, and in a whole lot of other cases, the cause couldn't be determined. Some of both groups are probably suicides. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 20:47:34 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| In reality, the suicide rate was 9.6 per 100,000 soliders per year for W, and 11.7 for Clinton, about 22% higher. Neither number is grossly out of line with the suicide rate in the civilian population, either (Clinton's is 7% higher, W's is 12% lower). |
Even if they are in a dead heat, I guess my point remains that it is surprising to me that it would even be close when 1000's of personal are serving 3 and 4 tours, with many seeing some heavy combat, in the Bush years. That doesn't surprise you at all?
| I would expect the suicide rate to be highest when personal are serving 3 and 4 tours with many seeing heavy combat during those tours. |
You'll have to look into military psychology, then. I suspect that these people are trained to go out and accomplish missions against enemies. Sitting around on base with little to do but train and get yelled at by your superior officers probably puts a lot of stress on them that they wouldn't have on the front lines. |
I don't know? I could see maybe a case here or a case there, but to think that personal serving during peace times have more stresses, to the point of suicide, then do personal who are being shot at (with real bullets)on a daily basis? I suppose it is possible, although it seems rather odd.
| Plus, if W didn't have these kids going out and getting killed, some of them probably would have killed themselves. Getting killed by a hostile action when you planned to off yourself the next day would move you from one category to the other. |
I suppose so, but again, I can't imagine that it is going to amount to a number that would sway these %'s a whole lot.
| Oh, and a huge proportion (compared to other Presidents) of W's dead soldiers haven't yet been classified as to cause-of-death, and in a whole lot of other cases, the cause couldn't be determined. Some of both groups are probably suicides. |
Again, I suppose so, but we can only speculate on how the unknowns would break down. I am sure the two wars are behind many of the unknowns. The “fog of war.”
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 21:09:47 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck (really, him!) wrote: | I did? Where in the world did I write that? |
So sorry! You are both Bills and I'd been responding to you a lot lately so I must have typed your name wrong without noticing. Again, many apologies - you are nothing like Bill Scott! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 21:13:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill Scott wrote: | I agree, Marf. With hindsight being 20/20 I don't think the rewards have been worth the price in Iraq. We needed to finish the fight with Al Queada and the Taliban in Afghanistan before we ever considered opening up another front somewhere else. And now it looks as if Iran should have been that next front, but not an occupation to install a new government, instead an attack to take out any nuclear ambitions, and then vacate the premises. |
Amazing how quickly you go from the death of one million innocent civilians caused by US military intervention to planning our next violent attack.
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/28/2008 21:15:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 21:33:00 [Permalink]
|
We're not talking about huge numbers, Bill. W only needed to have 35 more suicides each year to exceed Clinton's suicide rate. That's only one out of every 47,390 people serving.
Don't forget that in the general population, there were about 32,700 suicides in 2005. One for every 9,174 people. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 21:42:21 [Permalink]
|
I notice that nowhere during this discussion has bill speculated on why someone would doctor the numbers or why he was so eager to believe the false figures that he came running here to post them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/28/2008 21:42:43 |
|
|
|
Jumbo
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 02:32:19 [Permalink]
|
| My point was/is that I was surprised that the gap between Clinton and Bush was what it was. With two battle fronts going on concurrently I would expect W to lead in hostile casualties. But I was surprised by how many accidents and suicides that took place under the Clinton watch with no major wars being waged. My perception was that the military personal were taking a pounding in casualties due to the two wars. But the realty is that the military suffered much more overall casualties in the 1980's then now, with no major wars being waged at that time. And that moral for W is good with the 2nd lowest sucide rate under his watch in spite of many heavy combat tours for the troops. Not what I expected. |
My point was that its not the absolute numbers that show the picture but the rates. There may have been more casualties in the 1980s but the military was rather larger then so a higher number of casualties is to be expected. A higher rate of casualties is not to be expected though.
Currently (well in 2004 when the figures i had end) there is a higher casualty rate in the US armed forces than any time in the last 1/4 of a century. A US service man is more likely to die whilst serving the nation now than then. Fairly obvious given the current operational situation but the opposite of what is claimed by the pieces that promote the figures showing theres fewer absolute casualties. |
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY SIX YEARS
