Vietnam vrs Iraq stats

I thought this was an interesting insight into the depth of # America is in in Iraq...

argument.independent.co.uk...

It took two years for US deaths to reach 324 in Vietnam. It passed that figure in seven months in Iraq

These are early days in Iraq, where the conflict between a growing percentage of the native population and the occupying forces is escalating far more rapidly than it did in Vietnam.

It took two years, from 1963 to the end of 1964, for American combat deaths to reach 324. The US has surpassed that figure in only seven months in Iraq, where 398 American soldiers have died already. In the last 12 days, 38 have been killed.

As for the Iraqi dead, the US does not count them with similar precision. Vietnam offers examples to the US, but it is learning the wrong lessons.

Parallels with Vietnam are asserting themselves again and again in Iraq. They start with the justification for committing American troops to battle.

In both cases, politicians lied to persuade Congress and the public to go along. In 1964, the year Lyndon Johnson officially upgraded the US military role from advisory to combat, the secretaries of state and defence accused North Vietnam of attacking the USS Maddox.

It took two years for US deaths to reach 324 in Vietnam. It passed that figure in seven months in Iraq

damn...cant argue with that lil stat

I think some more knowledge about Vietnam is neccessary for this. (I dont really know a whole lot about Vietnam). However, as you stated, we were at first advisors in Vietnam. Where as in Iraq, from the start we have been the primary targets.

On the other hand, in Vietnam the US also faced the NVA, a well equipped professional army. We don't really know who's attacking us in Iraq, but it's clear that they're no professional army.

Regardless they seem to be doing a "good" job. They're "bringing it on"....

Originally posted by Langolier
I think some more knowledge about Vietnam is neccessary for this. (I dont really know a whole lot about Vietnam). However, as you stated, we were at first advisors in Vietnam. Where as in Iraq, from the start we have been the primary targets.

I think the term is "hostile invaders" rather than "primary targets".

I am sure there are a few Vietnam vets on board, or the sons and daughters thereof, who are more than qualified to see analogies and draw comparisons.

This is propoganda people!!!

Lets look at some historical facts shall we?

North Vietnam did not engage the U.S. until August of 1964 when they attacked two of our ships. One of them twice (USS Maddox). That was truly the beginning of "military conflict" in that situation. Everything before that was in an advisory role and some really, really bad choices in exfoliating agents to deny the viet cong the cover they needed.
It's fun when they provide dates in propoganda pieces.

Flinx,
The viet cong were a "terrorist" organisation much like AlQuida is now. They did a lot of bombings and kidnappings before we REALLY got involved.

Ask the French how it got so screwed up in the first place...

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Fry2]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Langolier
I think some more knowledge about Vietnam is neccessary for this. (I dont really know a whole lot about Vietnam). However, as you stated, we were at first advisors in Vietnam. Where as in Iraq, from the start we have been the primary targets.

I think the term is "hostile invaders" rather than "primary targets".

Your entitled to think that, but I disagree. Hostile invaders dont meet a heroes welcome in the capital city of the country they are invading. Granted, it didnt last..... however anarchy and violence tend to happen when faced with a political background.
I dont see this as Vietnam. It will never come close to reaching Vietnam size fatalities lists, because as is now apparent, decreasing public support for the war has encouraged the Bush admin do begin pulling out. I just hope they are sure of themselves when they leave an Iarqi government in place. I hope it doesnt get replaced by a dictator in 3 days after were gone.

Early in Nam US troops were few in numbers..

But from the start of this Iraq thing their numbers have been large..

Thats why the 'big' casualities..

The NVA..

They kicked French bottom big time..

French who had large numbers of Legionares in the Indochina..

And as we know at that time French foreign legion had plenty troopers from ruined Germany..

Ex-SS and Paratroopers etc..

Elite troops..
(those men that gave allies hard time right to the bitter end..)

And even without these The Legion has been always being considered as in the top 10 of the all military formations in the world..

Yet, NVA royally kicked their bottom..

So, NVA was to of the line enemy.. Iraqs armed forces however were in the brink of destruction in 80s many times in the face of human wave assaults of Iranian children tied together by ropes..