More soldiers died under Clinton than in Iraq....thats a fact.
People who whine about the Iraq casualties are disingenuous...that would be my point.
It's a false concern for our soldiers based on strictly trying to score political points..
More soldiers died under Clinton than in Iraq....thats a fact.
People who whine about the Iraq casualties are disingenuous...that would be my point.
It's a false concern for our soldiers based on strictly trying to score political points..
If someone is disingenuous the it obviously is you. What does the fact that soldiers die in combat in Iraq have to do with the fact that naturally there will always be deaths among the military personnel for non-combat related reasons like accidents and illnesses, especially since the latter of course happens just the same under Bush than it did under Clinton??
By your logic terrorism is a non-issue, as even 9/11 accounted only for about 0.1% of deaths in America in 2001. Also, under Hitler (even if you discount casualties of the war) the number of Germans who had died was several times the number of Jews killed in the concentration camps, so I guess you believe the Holocaust was no big problem, either, don't you?
Really, Mistermj, whenever I think your logic has hit rock bottom you always show me that it can sink even lower...
I'm sorry if the truth bothers you....but facts are facts.
More soldiers died under Clinton than in Iraq....thats a fact.
That's the only reply you could think of? Amusing.
It only took four times to get it through your head.
Amusing indeed...:lol:
Bill Clinton was caught perjuring himself - perjury is a crime - and that doesn't count the accompanying crime of sexual harassment. He deserved what he got.
If you're going to impeach Bush for the war, you can also impeach both houses of Congress since they had the same information and voted in support of Bush for the war. And they continue to support the war year after year as many Congressional Democrats continue to fund the so called "illegal" war.
As for the media, it's lies have finally caught up with it as the internet blogs have been able to spread the truth and to put the lie to much of the MSM’s propaganda. Look at John Edwards and Tim Mahoney whose extra-marital sexual exploits are barely covered in the MSM while Republican who do nothing more than make dirty phone calls to pages or play footsie with men in a public rest room are front page news for week after week.
Look at the famous Dan Rather fake Bush military documents that Rather knew were fictitious but presented them as the truth becuaes he felt they were "accurate".
Look at how the MSM has purposefully ignored Obama's history as it does everything in its power to destroy Sarah Palin.
Look at how the MSM has gone after Joe the Plumber because Obama walked into his driveway and he asked Obama a tough question.
If you believe the MSM is not prejudiced in favor of a liberal slate, then you are a dupe who deserves the ass fukking they have planned for you.
To get what through my head? I have never denied that when you have millions of people in the military it's, unfortunately, perfectly natural that over the course of eight years some of them will die because of illnesses and accidents, no matter who the president is. It's exactly the same with people not in the military, they suffer from illnesses and accidents, too. It's pretty sad that apparently you have to be explained such simple facts of life.
Your point was, basically, that it doesn't matter whether American soldiers die in Iraq or not because some of them die anyway. If you ask me, this is a very difficult position to maintain, and you haven't even tried to properly back up your assertion or at least respond to my argumentation. But then you rarely do ...
Listen...I know you can't stand it...but the fact remains...facts are facts...no matter how you try to spin it.
More soldiers died under Clinton than in Iraq....thats a fact.
Oh my, you just cannot stop embarrassing yourself, can you.
Once more, I do not dispute that fact. All I'm saying is that this fact means exactly ... nothing. You were the one who tried to spin it into some sort of argument, but as usual, you utterly failed.
Since you are so much into facts, here is one for you: According to the document you linked to, under Clinton 928 soldiers died due to reasons other than combat or terrorism per year, under Bush it were 1022. So even without the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan the mortality among soldiers was higher under Bush than under Clinton. What do you think of that?
Ayuh...I only tag him as "joeC Jr" because he's spent the past few months imitating Joe's shock value posting style
As STEAK notes, "mr mj" used to be a good poster...but he stopped trying to contribute anything of worth in early summer.
Check out his football picks. He does okay there....certainly much better than playing pretend Political Guy.
Sigh. What you're doing is improperly comparing the total number of soldiers who died under Clinton (regardless of location, and including combat & non-combat deaths) to the number of soldier deaths in only one specific region (Iraq) under Bush.
You're essentially saying that your arm is longer than Preussen's penis, and that your penis is slightly longer than Preussen's little toe (although this latter bit is disputable). These aren't valid comparisons, regardless of what your mother may tell you.
What you should be doing is comparing arms to arms, and penises to penises, and (no. of total military deaths under Clinton) to (no. of total military deaths under Bush), instead of limiting one of them to a specific location while imposing no such limitation on the other. As it stands, your little "fact" carries absolutely no significance.
I hope this little explanation has been clear enough to be understood even by a 5-year-old. Not a 5-year-old with a severe intellectual dishonesty problem, however - those kids are a tough bunch to reason with.
You're essentially saying that your arm is longer than Preussen's penis, and that your penis is slightly longer than Preussen's little toe (although this latter bit is disputable). These aren't valid comparisons, regardless of what your mother may tell you.
What you should be doing is comparing arms to arms, and penises to penises, and (no. of total military deaths under Clinton) to (no. of total military deaths under Bush), instead of limiting one of them to a specific location while imposing no such limitation on the other. As it stands, your little "fact" carries absolutely no significance.
I hope this little explanation has been clear enough to be understood even by a 5-year-old. Not a 5-year-old with a severe intellectual dishonesty problem, however - those kids are a tough bunch to reason with.
Nepenthe - Mistermj obviously had received one of those circulating e-mails with Hot Facts and now simply refuses to acknowledge that he had sheepishly repeated something without any meaning. Again.
It always amazes me to what lengths the local neocons go to avoid admitting defeat, no matter how much they make themselves ridiculous in the process. I guess they are simply not intelligent enough to realise how much damage this does to their credibility, because apparently they still expect to be taken seriously.
Nepenthe - Mistermj obviously had received one of those circulating e-mails with Hot Facts and now simply refuses to acknowledge that he had sheepishly repeated something without any meaning. Again.
It always amazes me to what lengths the local neocons go to avoid admitting defeat, no matter how much they make themselves ridiculous in the process. I guess they are simply not intelligent enough to realise how much damage this does to their credibility, because apparently they still expect to be taken seriously.
It's just amazing to me to watch all the twists and contortions the left wing will go through to avoid the facts.
No matter what you say, or how you try to discredit the facts...the facts still remain. It can't be denied.
Just face the facts...using weasel words and denial makes you look silly.
More soldiers died under Clinton than in Iraq....thats a fact.
And as an added point...it only underscores the hypocrisy of those who suddenly care about troop deaths...we never heard a peep from the left about it when Clinton was in office.
Utter hypocrisy...if you don't like me pointing that out...too damn bad.
Nepenthe - Mistermj obviously had received one of those circulating e-mails with Hot Facts and now simply refuses to acknowledge that he had sheepishly repeated something without any meaning. Again.
It always amazes me to what lengths the local neocons go to avoid admitting defeat, no matter how much they make themselves ridiculous in the process. I guess they are simply not intelligent enough to realise how much damage this does to their credibility, because apparently they still expect to be taken seriously.
Well, whats happening is the repugs realize there's a crack in the ice.
McSame spent $30mill and has $47 million left for October while Obama just added $!50million to his warchest. Dems are gaining massive momentum everywhere you look while the smart republicans make the shift towards the left. The far right are running out of plugs and chewing gum in the their already crumbling dam.
Mistermj said:
And the parrot keeps repeating and repeating.
As to your added point - correct, the "normal" troop deaths have not been mentioned when Clinton was in office - as they are not mentioned now under Bush. This is because everyone except you knows that, like I wrote earlier, people will always die from accidents and illnesses, in the military and in civil life. This simply cannot be prevented. What could be prevented, however, are the casualties in unnecessary wars and occupations.
So "the left" did not make an issue of something that cannot be prevented but shows care about something that can. If this is "utter hypocrisy" for you then you may want to check a dictionary for what this word actually means as you obviously have no idea.
For the rest:
Show me where I have discredited facts, used weasel words and denial. Respond to the points Nepenthe and I have mentioned. Until you do, this will be my last post in this thread (and we both know what the chance is for an intelligent and substantive response from you, dont we).
:nono5: (this isn't even counting 2007 & 2008 in Dumya's total)
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" width="5%" nowrap="nowrap">
</td><td align="left" valign="top" width="95%">Actually, even counting non-combat fatalities, more military personnel died during the first six years of George Bush's tenure than during the entire eight years that Bill Clinton was in office.
Most of the numbers in this e-mail are completely made up. We were particularly amused by its bravado in providing a supposed source for the information – but anyone who bothers to check that source will find that it contradicts the information presented. The truth is that more military personnel died during the first six years of the Bush administration than died during the eight years Clinton was in office, even counting military deaths in the U.S. from accidents, murders, suicides and natural causes.
According to the Congressional Research Service report that the e-mail cites, the breakdown of fatalities by race during Operation Iraqi Freedom is more-or-less accurate, but the breakdown of total military fatalities by year (which counts both combat and non-combat fatalities) is wildly inaccurate. Here are the actual numbers in graphic form:
As you can see, the e-mail grossly distorts the numbers in several years. For instance, the e-mail claims that 2,465 military personnel died (of all causes) in 1995, but according to the CRS report (which obtained its numbers directly from the Department of Defense), you have to go all the way back to 1980 – when the military was nearly 50 percent larger than it is currently – to get close to that figure. The true figure is less than half what the e-mail purports. In point of fact, 7,500 troops died during Clinton's eight years in office. During Bush's first six years, the number was 8,792. And that excludes the 899 combat deaths in 2007, which was the deadliest year of the Iraq war for U.S. troops. (We don't yet have figures for total deaths for that year.)
Flunking Arithmetic
Even if the numbers in the e-mail were correct, which they are not, its author adds them up improperly. The eight years of Clinton's term run from 1993 to 2000, so according to the numbers the e-mail presents, Clinton's tally should be 14,107, while Bush's six years (not seven, as stated) total 7,033. That's dismal arithmetic, especially from somebody who uses these fake numbers as a basis for accusing others of lying, twisting the truth and publishing "agenda-driven reporting."
Fruit Salad
We should also note that the message is artfully worded and invites a false conclusion. It argues that the loss of U.S. military lives "from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East" is less than "the loss of military personnel" under Clinton. Thus, it attempts to compare only the deaths due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with all military deaths during Clinton's eight years. That's not even comparing apples with oranges. It's really, to use a fruit-salad metaphor, asserting that George Bush's apple collection is smaller than Bill Clinton's collection of apples and oranges.
Why So Many?
It may surprise many to learn that there are so many military deaths during peacetime. But this is just the law of averages at work. In 1993 the military had 1.7 million men and women in uniform. During that same year, 1,175 of them died from accidents, homicide, suicide and illness. That makes the 1993 non-hostile death rate for military personnel 69.1 per 100,000. That's actually fairly low; the rate for all Americans age 20 to 29 is about 97.5. Today's military is considerably smaller, with just under 1.4 million personnel.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
-----------------------------------------------------------
MrNJ you Freeper's who keep passing around the bogus emails and phoney bullshit (Obama is going to forced on Oct. 15th to prove his citizenship, for example) all need to move on to Stage 3.
hno:
