Our Leader

[JohnD]

the point he is trying to stands up (or seems to)

what is this point?

 

[AtoZ]

fair one
i edited and didnt read it back properly.

i dont want' to agree with that yankee matey but in this respect, i do.

we would have to do so much work in order to find out if those, or any, statistics are true.
commercial news organisations should be more truthful but the cannot since they all have their own agenda.

 

[AtoZ]

sorted now.

 

[blondini]

I promise you that you are going to be surprised... amazed at these facts!

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 Yea r)
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 .......... 1,21 3 (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 (Geo rge W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

.... 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!

They don't mean that, and they are probably wrong.

Some of the figures Sylvan has quoted above are wildly different to those quoted below from the 'official' site linked to check them. There is a warning that some internet sites are known to be publishing false numbers. For example check out 1999 - 2000, Clinton years overstated above, and 2005-2006, Bush years understated above.

Deaths
1980 2,392
1981 2,380
1982 2,319
1983 2,465
1984 1,999
1985 2,252
1986 1,984
1987 1,983
1988 1,819
1989 1,636
1990 1,507
1991 1,787
1992 1,293
1993 1,213
1994 1,075
1995 1,040
1996 974
1997 817
1998 827
1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999
2003 1,410
2004 1,873
2005 1,941
2006 1,875

 

[JohnD]

Must beware of people who use the word "facts"

Are you saying that Tigger published false figures to make one politician look worse than the truth, and another politician look better than the truth?

I'm shocked

But I remember he published lies about French soldiers as well.

 

[blondini]

Are you saying that Tigger published false figures to make one politician look worse than the truth, and another politician look better than the truth?

I don't know John. Maybe I can't add up?

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

Clinton years (1993-2000): 7500 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 8989 deaths, plus how many more in 2007 and 2008???

 

[JohnD]

So he was lying about the true casualty numbers, and falsely suggesting they were worse under one politician than the other, when in fact the reverse is true?

Shameful.

Is that what counts as political debate in the land of the fat?

 

[billyo]

were they not all yanks them , and how many of the so called enemy did they kill

 

[AtoZ]

So he was lying about the true casualty numbers, and falsely suggesting they were worse under one politician than the other, when in fact the reverse is true?

Shameful.

Is that what counts as political debate in the land of the fat?

steady on
you might not do it about casualties but i have seen you attack brown and defend thatcher using the same sort of flawed statistics. now that is a fact!

people blame brown for problems caused by tory boy bankers
i remember major suffering the same slagging but caused by the same sort of tory boy bankers. spot the common link

you are just as selective.
now you will defend with detail rather than accept in principal.

everybody uses statistics to try and prove a point..

 

[JohnD]

i have seen you attack brown and defend thatcher using the same sort of flawed statistics. now that is a fact!

I find that very difficult to believe.

please show me where you think I have done it.

 

[AtoZ]

almost word for word..
..........
now your reply will be because you cannot since i never do it.. or as i thought!

i read certain peoples replies on here and you are one of them.
i learn from some people, agree with others and disagree with a lot.

you are a clever man john but you do 'knock' on the strength of opinion.
then you will churn out a statistic to try and reinforce a pov.

i hate it when someone clever influences someone dim. you do that a lot!

i dont want to be over critical of you and im not suggestng that your are a google stats freak like so many nowdays but i find it hard to see you use statements to hit back at that yankee matey, when you do similar yourself.

.....
be assured i dont like the rootin tootin and i can see ive added my tuppence to an on-going argument. i didnt realise at the time.
...
my point there was the media suggesting that america kills black people via the army (vietnam)

i wont have a running battle with you john because it cant be won by either of us.
i will have something to say when you rewrite/adjust history..

 

[JohnD]

I'll give you a clue:

i have seen you ...defend thatcher

you must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[AtoZ]

maybe.
tis only a forum after all.

 

[blondini]

everybody uses statistics to try and prove a point..

Statistics can be manipulated but that's very different to blatantly falisifying the figures.