US deaths Vietnam vs. Iraq

[Logan13]

I am tired of hearing that the Iraq war is becoming the "new" Vietnam war:

2,857 US deaths in Iraq war (2003 - Nov. 15, 2006)
58,209 US deaths in Vietnam war (1960 - 1975)
33,741 US deaths in Korean war (1950 - 1953)
291,557 US deaths in WW2 (1940 - 1945)
53,402 US deaths in WW1 (1917 - 1918)
2,260 US deaths in War of 1812 (1812 - 1815)
4,435 US deaths in American Revolution (1775 – 1783)

[J.S.N.]

they don't mean the new war where 58,209 americans are killed, they mean the new cluster**** war that drains huge resources for little or no benefit.

[Kärnfysikern]

I guess a more relevant question would be how many died during the first three years of the vietnam war??

[biglouie250]

the comparison with Nam isnt the death toll its the circumstances...... we thought we'd be greeted as liberators in both situations, but a great number of iraqi's and vietnamese dont and didnt want us there, regardless of what was going on in the country. when we gave the vietnamese weapons they laid them down and went back to the rice patties. the fear is that when we leave the same thing will happen and iraq will be chaos.

[Kärnfysikern]

the comparison with Nam isnt the death toll its the circumstances...... we thought we'd be greeted as liberators in both situations, but a great number of iraqi's and vietnamese dont and didnt want us there, regardless of what was going on in the country. when we gave the vietnamese weapons they laid them down and went back to the rice patties. the fear is that when we leave the same thing will happen and iraq will be chaos.

Whatever happened in vietnam after the war? thats one part of history I have never bothered to read about?

[J.S.N.]

Whatever happened in vietnam after the war? thats one part of history I have never bothered to read about?

they pretty much severed relations with china and the CCCP i think, and then they even pwnt the **** out of china in a border skirmish. i think they're doing pretty well actually; alot nicer place to live than when it was a rubber colony lol.

[Logan13]

they don't mean the new war where 58,209 americans are killed, they mean the new cluster**** war that drains huge resources for little or no benefit.

The fact that suprised me was that many more were killed in Vietnam compared to WW1.

[biglouie250]

The fact that suprised me was that many more were killed in Vietnam compared to WW1.

we really werent so heavily involved in ww1. We had an isolationist foreign policy, had it not been for Wilson's 14 points speech and the sinking of the Lusitania we would have never gotten invoilved. i beleive the french took most of the casualties for the allies. thats one reason why they punished germany at versailles. its also a reason why we werent making any decisions in the peace process.

[Logan13]

we really werent so heavily involved in ww1. We had an isolationist foreign policy, had it not been for Wilson's 14 points speech and the sinking of the Lusitania we would have never gotten invoilved. i beleive the french took most of the casualties for the allies. thats one reason why they punished germany at versailles. its also a reason why we werent making any decisions in the peace process.

Thanks for the history, I really do not know much about WW1.

[biglouie250]

wiki stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

seems we had over 100k deaths. pales in comparison to the russians and french tho!!

[biglouie250]

Thanks for the history, I really do not know much about WW1.

i love all things history

[Logan13]

i love all things history

You know what I love.....
almost having 3000 posts so that I can customize my avatar and such. I am taking suggestions, got any ideas on what it should say?

[singern]

You know what I love.....
almost having 3000 posts so that I can customize my avatar and such. I am taking suggestions, got any ideas on what it should say?

My friend you are without a doubt "the Post-master"

[biglouie250]

You know what I love.....
almost having 3000 posts so that I can customize my avatar and such. I am taking suggestions, got any ideas on what it should say?

worldnetdaily's AR SPY

lol, im almost there as well....... any ideas?

[Logan13]

My friend you are "the Post-master"

Yeh, I have been back in the office on a daily basis. Our season is about done for 2006. Seriously posting until I hit 3000, than I will cut back to reduce my blood pressure.....

[mcpeepants]

I guess a more relevant question would be how many died during the first three years of the vietnam war??

The Vietnamese were fighting the french for independence after world war 2 and the french eventually withdraw and it became a proxy war for cold war powers.

[J.S.N.]

wiki stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

seems we had over 100k deaths. pales in comparison to the russians and french tho!!

damn h ow'd the italians lose 700,000? all they did was surrender.

[Phreak101]

You know what I love.....
almost having 3000 posts so that I can customize my avatar and such. I am taking suggestions, got any ideas on what it should say?

Republican Weapon X

[Phreak101]

damn h ow'd the italians lose 700,000? all they did was surrender.

The African theatre if I'm not mistaken...

[Kärnfysikern]

The fact that suprised me was that many more were killed in Vietnam compared to WW1.

Seems like all american wars has been pretty low in causalties.

[biglouie250]

Seems like all american wars has been pretty low in causalties.

wars arent fought on american soil. we had the revolution and the civil war and that about wraps it up.

[Red Ketchup]

wars arent fought on american soil. we had the revolution and the civil war and that about wraps it up.

Don't forget WW2, Pearl Harbour bro...

Red

[Yesevil]

damn h ow'd the italians lose 700,000? all they did was surrender.

In the breakthrough by the Austro-Hungarians in North/Northwest Italy, and the Italians didn't surrender in WW1. The Germans/Austro-Hungarians Lost.

[biglouie250]

Don't forget WW2, Pearl Harbour bro...

Red

true, but technically speaking im not sure if the casualties of pearl harbor are counted in the war total as were not at war yet. im gonn ahve to look that up, im curious.

[LuckyDragon]

the comparison with Nam isnt the death toll its the circumstances...... we thought we'd be greeted as liberators in both situations, but a great number of iraqi's and vietnamese dont and didnt want us there, regardless of what was going on in the country. when we gave the vietnamese weapons they laid them down and went back to the rice patties. the fear is that when we leave the same thing will happen and iraq will be chaos.

Actually alot of Vietnamese did want us there. Thats why there was a huge exodus and people being cracked in the face when they tried to board the overloaded choppers that were going out.


Also the U.S. absolutely crushed the Viet Cong during and after the Tet Offensive. The insurgency was destroyed, it took a full US pullout, followed by the usage of traditional NVA armored divisions to take Saigon. It was just a bunch of BS with Walter Cronkite saying how they took the embassy even they the marines put caps in all the VC there. General Westmoreland wrote an interesting piece in which he defined how winnable that war was, but because of restrictions put on him by the democrat administration he was not allowed to "win", merely just hold the DMZ. Mining the NV coast, bombing Hanoi, mining Haiphong would have crushed them once the VC were gone.


Iraq isn't going to turn into a Western Democracy, but it is winnable in the sense if your goals are. It really is a matter of patience by the American people. The Iraqi soldiers can beat the insurgency but realistically they will need at least basic American support bases for at least 10 years. This doesnt mean US troop deaths but advisors, trainers, and support troops, airstrikes, intelligence. American people want quick videogame wars like Desert Storm 1, well it doesnt always work that way. Its sad that even 1 US soldier has died, but unfortunately thats the way it goes. Active duty should be getting payed triple, and it would only cost about 2% of that entitlement plan for seniors

A)Not let them get taken over by the Iranians
B)Crush the insurgency.

[biglouie250]

Actually alot of Vietnamese did want us there. Thats why there was a huge exodus and people being cracked in the face when they tried to board the overloaded choppers that were going out.

sure a lot did, just like a lot of iraqi's want us in iraq. we arent worried about the majority, we are worried about the rogue few who want us dead. and since they all look alike its hard to discern enemey from friend. that was my utlimate point.

[LuckyDragon]

sure a lot did, just like a lot of iraqi's want us in iraq. we arent worried about the majority, we are worried about the rogue few who want us dead. and since they all look alike its hard to discern enemey from friend. that was my utlimate point.

Well the news is reporting the Iraq Commission is coming up with suggestions which are to:

#1:Stay
#2:Abandon the whole western style democracy
#3 Increase funding for the troops and an additional 20,000 troops

Keep in mind this isn't Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolf, it is the advisors of Bush 41, which were in office during the Gulf War 1. Yet the Democrats are pre-emptively rejecting commission and demanding a 4-6 month withdrawal timetable. Apparently Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin know more about foreign policy then Baker, the Iraq Commission, the Pentagon, and the generals combined!

[biglouie250]

Well the news is reporting the Iraq Commission is coming up with suggestions which are to:

#1:Stay
#2:Abandon the whole western style democracy
#3 Increase funding for the troops and an additional 20,000 troops

Keep in mind this isn't Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolf, it is the advisors of Bush 41, which were in office during the Gulf War 1. Yet the Democrats are pre-emptively rejecting commission and demanding a 4-6 month withdrawal timetable. Apparently Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin know more about foreign policy then Baker, the Iraq Commission, the Pentagon, and the generals combined!

20k troops will do noithing. in war games prewar 400k troops were implemented and it fell short. we need a ton more troops there.

[LuckyDragon]

20k troops will do noithing. in war games prewar 400k troops were implemented and it fell short. we need a ton more troops there.

Those war games were worst case scenario. As bad is it may seem a 3 week toppling of Saddam, followed by 2k casualties isn't a worst case scenario.

400k troops is simply not feasible without an international coalition, nearly all of which have shown a desire not to participate. Is this because controlling Iraqs insurgency or toppling Saddam is evil or immoral? No, its because they dont want the drain on economic resources. They simply get to drain the US to provide their own security.

[Logan13]

20k troops will do noithing. in war games prewar 400k troops were implemented and it fell short. we need a ton more troops there.

agreed. Do it right or do not do it at all, we owe this much to our troops.

[SVTMuscle*]

I also do not like people claiming that Iraq is the new Nam, but.. can you please in 1 line state why nearly 3,000 American soldiers have died?

[Red Ketchup]

Those war games were worst case scenario.

I hate to tell you this, but it looks like Irak has turned into a "worst case scenario"...

Red

[MuscleScience]

In Desert storm one we had nearly 500,000 thousand of our own troops there. These coalitions everyone talks about is usually a few thousand combate engineers or logistical support or advisors. Brition is the only other country to really put any sizable number of troops in at all. It completely feasible to put that many in again. and should have been the number to begin with. Its so striking how similar MacNamira and Rumsfeld look and how they think technology is replacement for boots on the ground.

There are however some interesting paralles between iraq and vietnam. One being generals coming out after they "retire" and complain about being handcuffed by Polititions. Case in point is Al Sadr and his Medhi milita. If you remember in the early part of the conflict US Marines and Iraqi Troops had Al Sadr and what was left of his militia held up in a Mosque in Najaf. As Iraqi troops were about to storm the Mosque political conserns from the whitehouse stop the advance and a truce was called and Al Sadr promised to lay down arms and work with the Goverment and the US. We now see how well that turned out and now his Militia is stronger and responsible for shiite death squads in bagdad and Sadr city and his tone is even more anti-US, anti-iragi Nation government. Its just like Johnson and MacNamaria hand picking targets over north vietnam instead of the generals because they didnt want to send the wrong messages.