Iraq War casualties v. Vietnam War casualties

Iraq War casualties are have never yet dropped to as low as they were during the early days of the Vietnam War. The question is whether or not we will decide to buy that drastic mountain of bodies "coming up next..."

 

Let's look at some statistics.

American deaths in:

World War I - 116,516. 1818-1819
World War II - 405,399. 1941-1946
Korean War - 36,574. 1950-1053
Vietnam War - 58,209. 1964-1973

Based on this. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Now, let's look at the Iraq war.

From March 2003 to now... 2,157 deaths. Most of which are from non-battle situations.

Cite: http://icasualties.org/oif/

It's a war. People die. And we've been doing a damn good job of keeping them alive.

 

First of all, you should read your history book. WW I was fought in the 20th Century, not the 19th. You're off by 100 years.

I don't know what comic book you're reading to come up with
"Most of which are from non-battle situations."
Do you really believe that most of the 2,150+ U.S. deaths resulted from fights after games of Scrabble & stuff?
But that doesn't matter really. When you send people somewhere and they keep coming home in boxes--thousands of them--and well as 10 x that many injured (many permantly), it doesn't really matter HOW they died, only that they were sent there alive and came back dead. Their blood is still on jr's hands.

 

Or, I could have made a typo. You know, either one. Funny how that's the only rebuttal you can come up with.

They SIGNED UP for the military. They wanted to go and fight for their country. This isn't a draft situation. There's no need for a draft. Because they're VOLUNTEERING. They went to Iraq with 100% full knowledge that they might die, and that their death would be nothing but honorable. Do tell me, how does that translate into Bush killing them?

Oh, but of course. Bush also goes to Iraq, slits the throats of infants, and beats off into their open wounds. That's what he lives on, right? For Bush is the anti-christ.

 

Many U.S. service people in Iraq are in the Nat'l guard, and most U.S. service people who have been killed joined in peacetime, usually an economic decision.

Traditionally job of the Nat'l Guard is to help the NATION, not invading other countries.

jr created a combat zone and is sending our people there to die in it. Who's fault is it if not jr's?

Killing people who mean us no harm in NOT honorable.

Do you consider the U.S. soldiers who massacred over 800 unarmed civilians in My Lai honorable?
What about the Tiger Force, who wore necklaces of human ears? Honorable?
Do you consider killing people that a mentally incompetant leader tells you to is honorable?

Don't imagine for a moment that these events aren't taking place in Iraq.
It's what happens when the military convinces soldiers that the enemy is less than human.

 

While we're on the topic of mentally incompetant...

I don't find Bush to be a particularly witty individual.. but there's this thing in the U.S. government system called checks and balances. Anything Bush wants has to go through Congress. Are you saying that every person in the house is incompetent and bloodthirsty, also?

And are you saying that Saddaam WAS a competent leader? You talk of Bush's travesties... Saddaam tortured and killed hundreds of THOUSANDS of his own people. But OH NO, U.S. soldiers killed 500 people in Vietnam almost forty years ago.

Bush bad, Bush bad, Bush bad, Bush bad...

 

I can agree with that. No, not everyone in the congress is bloodthristy, but they were lured into a war based on false information in the face of a president who had imporperly biased the public into beleiving there was a connection between 911 and Iraq. There was no connection. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush went to Iraq first and foremost for oil and second to finish what his father couldn't. He used his bully pulpit to spread fear and then steered the empire to the dark side.

Even one death for an unjust cause is too many. Was Sadaam a competant leader. Yes. He was. Was he a just leader.. no I don't think so, but he DID maintain some level of law and order which we can not seem to do. Iraq is on the verge of civil war because some parts of this world simply can't be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats that sit in ivory towers.

 

If it's a war for oil, why am I paying $2.30/g for gas? Do tell me, how many barrels of oil have we taken from Iraq? Or wait.. is it one of those super secret operations that the citizens aren't supposed to know about, because the US gov't is ALL ABOUT making us sheep.

No. There weren't weapons of mass destruction. Save for Sadaam. He maintained law and order because he killed who he thinks disobeyed. Instead of always comparing Bush to Stalin, perhaps you could compare the opposition to Stalin.

 

perhaps you should look at the graph again. here, i'll paste it for you:


at this time during the vietnam war, there werent nearly as many deaths as there are during this war. my 11-year old brother understood this graph just now, i didnt have to explain anything to him.

 

In a poll conducted last week in Iraq, the majority of Iraqi's (56%) said life was better under saddam than it is now. In otherwords, they consider jr more of a tyrant than saddam.

A. What makes you think that, even if bushco had ALL the world's petroleum, we'd (you and me and most everyone else) would get it cheaply?
B. Iraqi's freedom fighters have done a damn good job of keeping the invaders from stealing their stuff. Oil exportation in down to a trickle, less that before we invaded and killed 10's of thousands of civilians for the crime of being Iraqi's.

 

yeah, anybody's who's watched or read any news in this past month knows that oil execs made record profits this year. go figure.

 

They've also done a damn good job of keeping Iraqis from access to aid workers, journalists, or even going to a mosque without being blown up by a car bomb.

So Ranger, why is it that you want to lick the ass of people who deliberately target civilians and celebrate their murders? Che Geuvara t-shirt doesn't make you feel like enough of a rebel?

 

Read up on what usually happens to enemy collaboraters(sp); i.e. those who aid the invaders.
Educate yourself; you may feel less like hurling childish insults.

 

whoa that chart is a big eye opener...thanks

 

I guess I must have been right about that t-shirt.

How is a campaign of car bombings against shiite mosques resistance? Are all shiites collaborators by virtue of their religeon? How exactly are aid workers and journalists collaborators? How exactly do you justify former baathists murdering democratically elected representatives of the new government? In fact, by your logic, the most "patriotic" Iraqis of all - by sheer coincidence of course - are concentrated in former Baathist strongholds, particularly Saddam's home town. On the other hand - sheer coincidence again, of course - the most treasonous Iraqis happen to be located in the regions which suffered the most under Saddam, such as the Kurds who were victims of a genocidal campaign. I wonder how the Kurds would interpret mr. teen rebel in his che guevara t-shirt celebrating the murder of election worker "collaborators" from the comfort of a sofa in his wealthy, safe country.

You need to educate yourself because you are trying to impress with radical politics and latching yourself onto whatever anti-American cause is at hand, and frankly it is pathetic. The only principle here is hating America and if that mean seeing Iraqis get fucked over by a resistance of appalling cruelty with explicitly totalitarian objectives, well thats a small price to pay for opposing America at all times. God forbid that you should stand up for democracy, as Iraqis themselves have done by risking their lives to vote in Iraq's first real elections. When was the last time you risked your life to vote, Ranger?

 

He doesn't want to be an American idiot. One nation consumed by the media.

Not my president!1!1oneone!!1

 

It's pathetic really how some people's lives are so bankrupt that they are unable to stick to a topic and subject us to their wild flights of fancy as to what kind of furnature and clothing I have.

Are you in love with me or something?

I refuse to dumb myself down to a shit-slinging contest. I believe there are sites that cater to that; do a search.

-Since the invasion the U.S. had been responsible for far far more Iraqi deaths than any other entity.

-Some insurgents will give their own lives to repel the invaders and their allies.

-Not all violence is Iraq is Iraqi vs. US. Some divisions go back centuries. Shiite's and Sunni's have both blown each other up since the invasion.

-In a poll taken a few days ago, most Iraqi's (56%) say they were better off under saddam than under the iron boot of the occupying invaders (which also invalidates any elections). 2/3 say they want the U.S. out.

-It will take the Iraqi forces as long to put down the insurgency on their own as it took the S. Vietnamese to do so.

 

The US has been responsible for around a third of civilian deaths so far, but most casualties were caused during the initial invasion. Now, the picture has changed. In February 2005, for example, the US was responsible for 11 civilian deaths while anti-occupation forces (your heroes) and others were responsible for 981. You must be so proud.

Praise be upon those who would give their own lives to blow up a Shiite vegetable market.

That is the universal equivalency fallacy. There is violence on both sides, so everyone is the same. But the vast majority of violence has been directed against the Shiites, in fact it is a testament to their committment to peace that retaliatory attacks have been as limited as they are. In fact the theory is that many of the mass murders of Shiites were specifically intended to start a civil war, and so far they have failed. Anyway, what's your point? Iraqis are savages that can't handle democracy? How can you say that and support violent resistance to a democratically elected government at the same time?

So Saddam is just Saddam, but the US is "the iron boot of the occupying invader". No bias there, right? And its funny, you sure didn't like the polls in Afghanistan, but I guess you like polls when they say what you want to hear? Still, I'd like to know how 70% of the eligible electorate turning up to vote in Iraq invalidates the recent elections. That's a higher turnout that in the US. Even insurgent strongholds saw good turnout. Pretty bad news for you I guess. But you will always have the right to deny reality.

The South Vietnamese insurgency had North Vietnam as a sanctuary nation and to some extent Laos and Cambodia too. It also had massive material support from China, and some from Russia too. At the end South Vietnam was essentially invaded by a massive North Vietnamese army complete with over 600 tanks and 400 APCs. How does this compare with Iraq? It doesn't, so you hopes for the defeat of Iraqi democracy by a terrorist army will probably be disappointed.

 

It's true, you DO love me.

You just can't seperate world events from me can you?

Well, I'm not interested in a relationship pointbreak.

I'm not going to bother to refute all of your misstatements due to your inability to stop throwing dirt at me like a love-sick 3rd grade schoolgirl.

P.S. you know I've recieved PM's--people are beginning to feel embarrased for you.

 

I'm not sure if you have some sort of narcissistic personality disorder or what. But it seems a bit peculiar that you would imagine that anyone who responds to your posts is doing anything other than responding to your posts. Its called a forum. People post things, and then other people respond. You'll get the hang of it eventually.