Iraq and Vietnam war dead comparisons...

[SeekingTruth]

I work with with a Vietnam vet, who hammered Clinton as a draft dodger when he ran but now, has suddenly forgotten Bush's own dodging.

When I bring up Bush's war dead he screams back, "We lost 58,000 in Vietnam!!!"

What I always forget to point out was that that was over ten years and that medical technology today is much more advanced. I don't know if this is correct or not, but from something I read, I seem to recall that loss of blood and being unable to stop bleeding was one of the major causes of loss of life in Vietnam. This makes me wonder, just how many soliders would be dead today if there had not been this medical advancement.

[kikiek]

1. ...and would he be happy if we hang in there

until we lost 58,000 in this war too? What an idiot.

[WiltedFlowerChild]

2. Comparison

It took several years for the Vietnam War to escalate to a level in which 1,000 US soldiers had been killed even with the less effective field medical care.

It took 15 years of the American public's acceptance of the war to reach 58,000.

58,000 is incomprehensible. 1,000 is unacceptable. 1 is 1 too many.

[mairceridwen]

3. i'm sure the families

are happy that their kids were only 1 of 1000 killed:


OH THANK GOD SCOTTY IS ONLY ONE OF 1000 DEAD IMAGINE HOW MUCH WORSE MY HEART WOULD ACHE IF HE WERE ONE OF 10,000 or 20,000 or 58,000


ask him if we should wait until we reach 58,000 in iraq before we start criticising bush


one to die for a lie is one too many

[IowaGuy]

4. Actually I believe that 58,000 number ....

covers about 15 years, which is somewhat irrelevant. Your friend went through hell and has to find a way to justify it. I wouldn't be to hard on him, he may be misguided, but that is pretty much the point. The government lied to us back then and wasted 58,000 of our best. They are lying to us now and it is up to us that experienced that failure of our goverment officials back then to stand up firm now and not let this fiasco get to the point Viet Nam did. Arguing numbers doesn't get you anywhere here...its the failure to learn our lessons and doin' the same stupid crap over again thats the problem.

[Kimber Scott]

5. Good thought, but we still wouldn't have as many dead. There were

more military personnel sent to Vietnam. By 1968, 500,000 troops had been sent and 38,000 were dead. That's 7.6%. LBJ sent another 500,000 while he was in office. If the total was 58,000 Americans killed, that's 5.8%. So, how many Americans are in Iraq?

I'm Googling. I'll be BACH!

On edit: I just found a 138,000 number for troops in Iraq. I'm not a mathematician, so I don't know how one would figure in rotations, etc., but using 1188 American casualies, out of 138,000 gives us a little less than 1% casualty rate. But, things are just getting started.

No matter the numbers - one is too many to die for a lie.

[TomClash]

6. Kevlar . . .

. . . is something they did not have in Nam. Saves a lot of lives.

[kayell]

7. US Dead In Vietnam and Iraq by year

US Dead In Vietnam
Year

Dead
1964 453
1965 2,532
1966 6,053
1967 11,058
1968 16,522
1969 11,527
1970 6,065
1971 2,348
1972 561
TOTAL 57,119


US Dead in Iraq
2003 482
2004 570
2005
2006
2007
....
20??

--------------------------------
And just look at all the incredible good that has come to the entire world because of our experiments in imperialism. Worth every dead soldier (not to mention the thousands on thousands of civilians). Yessiree, it's just done wonders for our national stature, our reputation in the world. I bet every single relative and friend of the troops in Vietnam and Iraq are just pleased as peaches that they had the honor of sacrificing their loved one for such a wonderful cause.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. What exact number of deaths would need to occur for idiots

like him to take what's going on there a little more seriously? No one should have died for this bullshit. 'Only' 1050. Is he willing to sacrifice himself or his child for it? I doubt it.

[Jokinomx]

9. I am a big NPR fan and I heard some facts about the number of

of wounded compared to those killed. I don't remember the exact ratios... but I do recall that the number wounded to killed in Iraq is signifantly increased compared to Vietnam. I want to say 6 to 7 wounded to every soldier killed in Iraq.

:dem:

[kayell]

10. US Iraq dead:wounded

to date.

1:6.68 (This is by far the highest ratio of wounded to dead in any major US conflict to date. The next highest was Korea at 1:4.1)see site below for ratios in other conflicts.

Dead 1052
Wounded 7032

Vietnam http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
1:3.6

Dead 58,168*
Wounded 153,303
*(figures a little different from earlier message, diff source, diff accounting methods?)

[Jokinomx]

11. Well.... My memory is better than I thought...:-)

Thanks for the information. I will say the Vietnam "Police Action" the ratio was 3.5 wounded to every soldier killed... I am curious to see if I am close with that one....

:kick:

[kayell]

12. You have an excellent memory.

[Jokinomx]

13. It must be all the weed I have smoked in my life...LOL

[kayell]

14. No figures I can find, but I would guess that the surviving wounded may

have even more devastating injuries than those from vietnam. People who would have died in the jungle from their injuries may survive those same injuries now thanks to improved medical procedures. But what happens when the wounds are completely debilitating, like head injuries? What will happen to these people in the stripped down VA system?