Duchess Jack Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 (edited) I was born in '75 - so it is well before my time. How do the two wars compare? Socially, economically, politically, death toll, etc. I am just trying to put the Iraq war in proper historical prespective. Viet Nam held a certain... I don't know... stigma in my youth... don't know if that was the right word, because I did not have any ill feelings towards it - I just knew it was bad on a lot of levels. I got this from movies and such, but also vets who served who were really disturbed and didn't want to talk about it. Woodstock (where I was brought up, by the way) also plays into my thoughts on Nam. Different time I guess... wondering where all the activism is now. Maybe the fact that it was so recent played a role as well. Not sure. Thoughts. Edited March 17, 2007 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Vietnam combat death toll around 58,000 current Iraq combat death toll 2611 just looked those up for starters.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Vietnam combat death toll around 58,000 current Iraq combat death toll 2611 just looked those up for starters.......... Yer hundreds off on the Iraq numbers. Confirmed dead using DoD numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 The major difference is that Vietnam was a full fledged war while Iraq is a police action. Another difference is that Vietnam was an attempt to prop up an ally (however corrupt) against an enemy and the prevailing Communist domino theory while Iraq is a result of a decision to change the face of the Middle East. To my mind, casualty numbers are an irrelevancy - it is the overall worth of the campaign that is important. Thus (again IMO) WW2 would have been worth fighting even with twice the casualty numbers as it represented the future of the entire planet. As to why there isn't the activism......good question. Many possible answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 (edited) Yer hundreds off on the Iraq numbers. Confirmed dead using DoD numbers. Yours shows 3208....... My Goggle search was Anti War.com.......which had 2 categories...3209 & 2611 of that combat death Edited March 17, 2007 by nuke'em ttg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 The major difference is that Vietnam was a full fledged war USA never declared war, it was called a "conflict" for our part in it. Technicality, I know. For us, it wasn't full fledged either. It was a limited use of force. We only think of the Vietnam War as being late 60's and early 70's. But is was being fought since the mid 1950s. Lots of good info here: http://www.answers.com/topic/vietnam-war What helped cause the activism? "The length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes such as the massacre at My Lai helped to turn many in the United States against the war." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 As to why there isn't the activism......good question. Many possible answers. Try living near ground zero for activists. There's a large anti-war march planned in DC this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 There's also no draft today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 There's also no draft today. There's plenty of draft today, I tend to stay traditional with Guinness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 The major difference is that Vietnam was a full fledged war while Iraq is a police action. Another difference is that Vietnam was an attempt to prop up an ally (however corrupt) against an enemy and the prevailing Communist domino theory while Iraq is a result of a decision to change the face of the Middle East. That's about it. Around the time that I left Iraq in 2003 was also about the time that Operation Iraqi Freedom ended, which was an actual war campaign. Ever since then it was supposed to be the Army's job to secure the country and, yes, basically occupy it until everything stabilized. The problem was it didn't stabilize like predicted, and years later here we are. But that doesn't mean it will never stabilize. We can still come out of this with an understanding that certain things were out of our control, but we worked though it and won this thing. Unless of course some individuals with government power want to emulate the French and surrender like a bunch of pansies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 But that doesn't mean it will never stabilize. Ok, what incident or period of history in The Middle East gives you any hope of this happening? I'm pretty sure you can file this under wildly optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 USA never declared war, it was called a "conflict" for our part in it. Technicality, I know. For us, it wasn't full fledged either. It was a limited use of force. I believe this could be where the Bush administration screwed up, however, it wasn't realized until way after Saddams regime was toppled. Instead of sending an initial troop surge of 500,000 (like the first Gulf War), President Bush sent about 100,000 troops. If I'm not mistaken it was about a year later in 2004 that everyone started realizing this will take a lot more troops and a lot more time before Iraq stabilizes. As for your comment about a 'full fledged conflict', that is simply not the case. The thought was that we wouldn't need 500,000 troops to accomplish the long-term mission. But when the United States sent almost its entire U.S. Marine Corp into combat, especially to invade a country, it's a full fledged war. Many people might not realize what the mission of the Marines, which is "To locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat." That's not occupy and secure, it's to destroy and kill the enemy using the most advanced training available. Where Bush's plan failed was in the aftermath of the war, as I'm sure he probably assumed Iraq would not need that many troops to 'secure' the country. In either case, the fact is that the country still has security issues that need to be resolved before we can leave Iraq knowing it won't collapse into a terrorist haven. Ok, what incident or period of history in The Middle East gives you any hope of this happening? I'm pretty sure you can file this under wildly optimistic. Good point. The Middle East has their ongoing religious war that's been around since the dawn of time. But to say that we cannot help Iraq build enough security to stand on its own is wildly pessimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 As for your comment about a 'full fledged conflict', that is simply not the case. RiffRaff was referring to Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 There's also no draft today. That right there is the reason the country is awash in apathy - no risk to themselves for the vast majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 That right there is the reason the country is awash in apathy - no risk to themselves for the vast majority. why risk your life for people that dont give a damn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Egret nailed the big one, no draft now. Bring back the draft or make national service compulsary and you'll see a lot more activism. Also, we used napalm in Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 If they implemented the draft, we would be out of Iraq in five minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Egret nailed the big one, no draft now. Bring back the draft or make national service compulsary and you'll see a lot more activism. Also, we used napalm in Vietnam. That really really makes a lot of sense to me. That might be the biggest difference despite all the other critical issues. Stange to hear the napalm comment, I will have to read more about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Yo DJ.......a Fox Hole.......... is a Defensive Fighting Position......not a throwdown ya whipper snapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunysteelfly76 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Stange to hear the napalm comment, I will have to read more about it. What I get from the napalm comment is that in this conflict there is more attention paid to civilian casulties. Today we have precision weapons that are meant to only hit the intended targets. In Viet Nam the intention was to fire bomb the country to flush out enemy regardless of who was in the way. It should be noted that in Viet Nam is was sometimes impossible to tell the enemy apart from the innocent civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 It should be noted that in Viet Nam is was sometimes impossible to tell the enemy apart from the innocent civilian. Precisely the problem in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In both, it is astounding there have not been more pure civilian casualties especially given the terrorist propensity to deliberately use civilians as shields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 That really really makes a lot of sense to me. That might be the biggest difference despite all the other critical issues. Stange to hear the napalm comment, I will have to read more about it. I was being a smartass. Napalm is one of the cruelest inventions ever, IMO. Too many innocents hit and hurt by it. I was in Vietnam from Dec. '72 thru Aug. '73 when America was doing the big pull out. My unit was redeployed to Thailand where I was in the security element of a Marine airbase that continued to bomb the bejeezus out of Cambodia and Vietnam. Saw many A6s and F4s leave with full bomb racks and come back an hour or so later empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I believe this could be where the Bush administration screwed up, however, it wasn't realized until way after Saddams regime was toppled. Instead of sending an initial troop surge of 500,000 (like the first Gulf War), President Bush sent about 100,000 troops. If I'm not mistaken it was about a year later in 2004 that everyone started realizing this will take a lot more troops and a lot more time before Iraq stabilizes. As for your comment about a 'full fledged conflict', that is simply not the case. The thought was that we wouldn't need 500,000 troops to accomplish the long-term mission. But when the United States sent almost its entire U.S. Marine Corp into combat, especially to invade a country, it's a full fledged war. Many people might not realize what the mission of the Marines, which is "To locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat." You are mistaken. Grunt, l and lots of people knew it would take a lot more troops than the Bush admin was willing to send before we went. Yer wrong when you say it wasnt until 2004 that anyone figured that out. The neocons wanted todo it on the cheap and chased generals who knew better out. But guys like Shinseki, Zinni, and Jim Webb were all saying it was a mistake to go in or that if we went we needed lots and lots more troops to control and occupy the country against potential insurgents. Let me ask you a question. In yer fantasy timeline where "everyone" realized we didnt have enough troops in 2004, what did the Bush admin and GOP Congress do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.