Help me disprove a right wing talking point

[Mortos]

On a conservative website a right wing poster is claiming that more military people die in peacetime than in this war. He claims to have spoken to a soldier who stated this. This has to be propoganda. Can anyone give some factual figures on this topic?

[shoelace414]

1. he made the claim.. have him give you the stats.

[WoodrowFan]

3. yes, make him prove it.

that may be the single DUMBEST claim I have ever heard anybody make.

[SHRED]

2. Ask them to prove it and qualify their source!

After all, they are making the claim.

Also, what about the maimed? Do they count acoording to the wingnut?

[JaneQPublic]

16. GOP proof = "Someone I know said so."

By contrast, those of us on the left can provide documentation, transcripts, statistics, news articles, etc., yet the Repukes will always disregard our proof by saying "everyone knows that source has a liberal bias!"

[KurtNYC]

4. Perhaps he means that most of our casualties in Iraq

have come after the Resident declared "Mission Accomplished!"

[K-W]

5. Hearsay isnt proof, he needs to support his claim. EOM

[mmonk]

6. You've got to love the logic!

Soldiers are less likely to die during this war than if they didn't go?:crazy:

[ET Awful]

7. LOL . . . Okay, ask him to pick any like time-span, i.e.

the time from the start of the invasion until today, except during a time of peace. . . have him find any comparable time span in peacetime and show you casualty figures proving that over 1,700 soldiers were killed during a time of peace.

[northzax]

8. accept it as true, if you want

and then point out that all the people killed in war are in addition to the ones who die during peace. Training exercise don't stop during war, that's where people die. So the 1800+ are in addition to the normal attrition.

it's roughly like saying, who cares if you kill 1000 kids? that many die every year in auto accidents.

[drfunk]

9. hundreds die every year

of non combat related deaths even in peacetime. But to say more people die in peacetime than in war is utter nonsense. This may be true for recent low casualty wars but in full scale conflicts (armies pitted against eachother) such as vietnam over 50,000 people die.

Just say to him are you trying to trivialize the sacrifice the troops made in the line of duty and tell him because he supports this war so much give him the number of his nearest marines recruiter.

[Lannes]

10. Maybe he is saying more people die of natural causes

Considering the size of the military he may be right but remind him that these men arent dying of natural causes or accidents.They were sent there to die,they didnt have to.Huge difference.

edited for spelling

[BOSSHOG]

11. Totally irrelevant

More soldiers may die from car wrecks and alcohol related incidents but it is totally fucking irrelevant. A car wreck is not caused by a political decision based on lies and for the personal wealth of republicans.



Its as stupid and ignorant (ie - conservative) as Valerie Plame sent her husband to Niger. She didn't but that is irrelevant as well.

[madmom]

12. Don't waste your time..

you really are dealing with an idiot here.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

13. From what causes?

Old age? Disease? Accidents?

The neat lie here is that the death toll he speaks of is one of a non-combat nature, which would remain more or less static in peactime and while we were at war.

Again, as another poster stated, ask him for stats and not just the "I know a guy who says" routine.

[Hamlette]

14. given we have been at peace for more years than we have been at war

it's undoubtedly true. The issue is preventable deaths.

[WoodrowFan]

15. here you go..

Here you go, the military’s OWN figures…

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

On first glance it appears to be true. HOWEVER, it depends on you comparing the death rates for all US military world-wide vs. the death rate for those soldiers serving in a combat area, a MUCH smaller number. For example, in 2004 there were 1,700,000 in service. The DOD site lists 1,887 dead, of which 43% were from hostile action. However, that 43% came from 140,000 in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan. So 43% of the dead came from roughly 10% of the military. By any reasonable standards then, the RWer is full of shit. Ask him to ask his soldier friend where he’d rather serve, stateside, or in Iraq??

[wli]

20. try wounded

Big, big difference.

[Mortos]

17. Using their own website against them

One right winger posted figures from a site that I went to and found out the following:


1. The number of people serving in the armed forces has dropped from a high of over 2 million to about 1.5 million today. Less accidental deaths would be expected with less people serving.

2. The number of accidental deaths has dropped dramatically since the 1980's and has remained fairly stable for the last 10 years.

3. The number of accidental deaths for the last two years (since the Iraqi war began) has remained relatively stable an average of about 560 per year. The number of combat casualties has exploded during that time to over a thousand deaths.

Your recruiter is lying Shawn. More soldiers have died than normally would. Over ten thousand have been injured (many seriously) that wouldn't have been in peacetime.

In 2001, 437 accidental deaths were reported 3 hostile action deaths.

In 2002, 547 accidental deaths were reported, 18 hostile.

In 2003 560 accidental deaths, 344 hostile.

In 2004 565 accidental deaths, 737 hostile.

I might also add that accidental deaths includes vehicle crashes in the war zone which escalate dramatically but are not included in the hostile deaths.

There you have it using your website and your figures your claim is patently false. More soldiers are dying now than anytime in the last 17 years. More soldiers are being killed in combat by far than anytime since Vietnam.

The numbers don't lie, but recruiters, apparently, still do.

[Toots]

18. There are also more trees in America now than when Columbus arrived.

:crazy: Also it doesn't matter if the ice and glaciers melt. The waters will not rise. As proof all you need to do is drop an ice cube into a glass of water and note the water level. After the ice cube melts check the level out again. They stay the same thus no rise in water levels if the ice melts. Both "facts" were heard on Rush Limbaugh. :hurts:

[NYC Liberal]

19. How long have we been in "peacetime" vs this war???

Ask him that.

Using his logic, I could say that more people died during the rest of 2001 than did on 9/11. It's true but what's the point?

Besides, the point is we could have PREVENTED these deaths by NOT going to war!