| |
Main
Date: 04 Dec 2006 07:50:43
From: Aodhan
Subject: Death rates by war - was OT: Where are the college kids?
|
On Dec 3 2006 2:04 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > Wow, 3K dead and you compare it to Vietnam where we lost 58K? The US
> > loses 41K people every year to auto accidents. I'm not defending our
> > success or lack thereof over there but if every death on the road was
> > reported on TV everyday you would think our highways was guaranteed
> > suicide..
>
> You're right, there's only 3k dead. Trivial. It's just the media making us
> think it's a big deal. There's ~150k troops in Iraq compared to how many
highway
> drivers?
>
> And don't compare the death rates in Vietnam v. Iraq in relation to our time
> spent there. Oh and don't take into account the thousands of Iraq war
injuries
> that would've been deaths without modern medicine and technology.
>
> No there's clearly no comparing the two.
World War II - 407,300 casualties in 4 years. About 100,000 a year.
Korean Conflict - 50,000 in 3 years. (Which saw the advent of the MASH
units, and had more advances in emergency medicine than any other
concentrated time period.)
Vietnam war - 58,000 deaths. Exact time of entry is somewhat disputed, but
we'll go with Operation Rolling Thunder in 1965. 1974 is when the US
funding was cut off, so 9 years, or about 6500 per year.
Gulf War, about a year, 378 dead. We kind of slacked here.
Iraq War - from March 2003 to present, so almost 4 years, 2900 dead. 750
per year.
So lets compare Vietnam to Iraq. Lets even quadruple the deaths (Since
we've made so many strides in emergency medicine, etc.), so that would
make it 3000 a year in Iraq. That's still only half the deaths that
occurred in Vietnam. Hrm. Lets try comparing it as a percentage. At top
buildup, we had just over 500,000 troops in Vietnam. So, as an average
over the entire war, lets say probably about 425,000 total per year.
That's right at 1.5% death rate per year. If we go with the true 750
deaths per year, we don't even come close to 1%. If we go with our
artificially inflated 3000 deaths, we get to 2%.
So, I would say that it is easy to compare the Iraq war with Vietnam. And
Vietnam was deadlier and more unpopular.
Aodhan
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 09:40:33
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: Death rates by war - was OT: Where are the college kids?
|
Whether Bush was
> right to invade Iraq is a point that will be argued by historians for
> years, but if he had been right about Saddam and Saddam was left alone,
> as Hitler was in the 30's? Now that is food for thought.
Let's not forget about the next in power (in Iraq) also while debating
this.
Ole
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 09:32:46
From:
Subject: Re: Death rates by war - was OT: Where are the college kids?
|
Will in New Haven wrote:
> Aodhan wrote:
> > On Dec 3 2006 2:04 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > > Wow, 3K dead and you compare it to Vietnam where we lost 58K? The US
> > > > loses 41K people every year to auto accidents. I'm not defending our
> > > > success or lack thereof over there but if every death on the road was
> > > > reported on TV everyday you would think our highways was guaranteed
> > > > suicide..
> > >
> > > You're right, there's only 3k dead. Trivial. It's just the media making us
> > > think it's a big deal. There's ~150k troops in Iraq compared to how many
> > highway
> > > drivers?
> > >
> > > And don't compare the death rates in Vietnam v. Iraq in relation to our time
> > > spent there. Oh and don't take into account the thousands of Iraq war
> > injuries
> > > that would've been deaths without modern medicine and technology.
> > >
> > > No there's clearly no comparing the two.
> >
> > World War II - 407,300 casualties in 4 years. About 100,000 a year.
> > Korean Conflict - 50,000 in 3 years. (Which saw the advent of the MASH
> > units, and had more advances in emergency medicine than any other
> > concentrated time period.)
> > Vietnam war - 58,000 deaths. Exact time of entry is somewhat disputed, but
> > we'll go with Operation Rolling Thunder in 1965. 1974 is when the US
> > funding was cut off, so 9 years, or about 6500 per year.
> > Gulf War, about a year, 378 dead. We kind of slacked here.
> > Iraq War - from March 2003 to present, so almost 4 years, 2900 dead. 750
> > per year.
> >
> > So lets compare Vietnam to Iraq. Lets even quadruple the deaths (Since
> > we've made so many strides in emergency medicine, etc.), so that would
> > make it 3000 a year in Iraq. That's still only half the deaths that
> > occurred in Vietnam. Hrm. Lets try comparing it as a percentage. At top
> > buildup, we had just over 500,000 troops in Vietnam. So, as an average
> > over the entire war, lets say probably about 425,000 total per year.
> > That's right at 1.5% death rate per year. If we go with the true 750
> > deaths per year, we don't even come close to 1%. If we go with our
> > artificially inflated 3000 deaths, we get to 2%.
> >
> > So, I would say that it is easy to compare the Iraq war with Vietnam. And
> > Vietnam was deadlier and more unpopular.
> >
> > Aodhan
>
> Antietam Creek: 2,108 Union dead in one day. 1,546 Confederate dead, if
> you want to count enemy dead. Out of a total of 120,000 men engaged.
> That's over 3% of the forces killed. in one DAY. If we had television
> coverage of that battle, popular opinion would have driven both sides
> to the negotiating table.
>
> For many people who knew the history, the word "Antietam" on the screen
> at the beginning of the film <Glory> was enough to raise the hair on
> the back of your neck.
>
> Will in New Haven
I don't want to get involved in the politics of this, because I am not
from the USA and have different views entirely but casualties and death
can not be put into the context that is being laid out here. The
amount is irrelevant. It's the cause that is relevant and each "war"
needs to be taken on its own set of circumstances rather than being
compared.
The UK & France were sicked by war after WWI. The casualties listed
above are horrific but nothing compares to the trench wars of WWI.
Just read up on the most famous of them, the Battle of the Somme.
Britain had nearly 60,000 casualties on the first day, so it's not
surprising how reluctant the French and the British were to take on
Hitler in 1939 so they tried the diplomatic approach. It failed.
Germany was forbidden from building up arms after 1918 but they did so
in the 1930's and no one lifted a finger to even try and stop them....
Then they declared war, after Germany had invaded Poland and the UK and
France did next to the nothing for the next few months. At the point
of declaring war the French and British outnumbered the German troops
but, the French especially, were reluctant to take the Germans on in
the field. I genuinely believe that the French throught their defences
were too strong for the Germans and also they miscalculated just how
ambitious Hitler was. I think they probably felt that Hitler would
simply back down when faced with such superior numbers. They were
proven wrong in the most catastrophic of ways.
What is the point in my writing the above? Taking no action can be just
as bad, if not worse, than taking the wrong action. Whether Bush was
right to invade Iraq is a point that will be argued by historians for
years, but if he had been right about Saddam and Saddam was left alone,
as Hitler was in the 30's? Now that is food for thought.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 10:57:24
From: Aodhan
Subject: Re: Death rates by war - was OT: Where are the college kids?
|
> I don't want to get involved in the politics of this, because I am not
> from the USA and have different views entirely but casualties and death
> can not be put into the context that is being laid out here. The
Sure they can. That's the context that the original poster put them in, so
I did the comparisons in the same vein.
> amount is irrelevant. It's the cause that is relevant and each "war"
> needs to be taken on its own set of circumstances rather than being
> compared.
You can't compare causes and say that this war was right or this war was
wrong, because in so doing, you are putting your own moral judgement on
the cause. There are still people today that revere Hitler and think that
he had a pretty good thing going. That's their moral judgement. The fact
that it goes against the judgement of most sane individuals is irrelevant.
When you judge morality of a war, it's a personal thing.
Look at the Iraq war, and take an informal poll, and see how many people
view this war as moral and just, and how many view it as immoral and
unjust. Those are all personal views.
Aodhan
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 08:30:49
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Death rates by war - was OT: Where are the college kids?
|
Aodhan wrote:
> On Dec 3 2006 2:04 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > > Wow, 3K dead and you compare it to Vietnam where we lost 58K? The US
> > > loses 41K people every year to auto accidents. I'm not defending our
> > > success or lack thereof over there but if every death on the road was
> > > reported on TV everyday you would think our highways was guaranteed
> > > suicide..
> >
> > You're right, there's only 3k dead. Trivial. It's just the media making us
> > think it's a big deal. There's ~150k troops in Iraq compared to how many
> highway
> > drivers?
> >
> > And don't compare the death rates in Vietnam v. Iraq in relation to our time
> > spent there. Oh and don't take into account the thousands of Iraq war
> injuries
> > that would've been deaths without modern medicine and technology.
> >
> > No there's clearly no comparing the two.
>
> World War II - 407,300 casualties in 4 years. About 100,000 a year.
> Korean Conflict - 50,000 in 3 years. (Which saw the advent of the MASH
> units, and had more advances in emergency medicine than any other
> concentrated time period.)
> Vietnam war - 58,000 deaths. Exact time of entry is somewhat disputed, but
> we'll go with Operation Rolling Thunder in 1965. 1974 is when the US
> funding was cut off, so 9 years, or about 6500 per year.
> Gulf War, about a year, 378 dead. We kind of slacked here.
> Iraq War - from March 2003 to present, so almost 4 years, 2900 dead. 750
> per year.
>
> So lets compare Vietnam to Iraq. Lets even quadruple the deaths (Since
> we've made so many strides in emergency medicine, etc.), so that would
> make it 3000 a year in Iraq. That's still only half the deaths that
> occurred in Vietnam. Hrm. Lets try comparing it as a percentage. At top
> buildup, we had just over 500,000 troops in Vietnam. So, as an average
> over the entire war, lets say probably about 425,000 total per year.
> That's right at 1.5% death rate per year. If we go with the true 750
> deaths per year, we don't even come close to 1%. If we go with our
> artificially inflated 3000 deaths, we get to 2%.
>
> So, I would say that it is easy to compare the Iraq war with Vietnam. And
> Vietnam was deadlier and more unpopular.
>
> Aodhan
Antietam Creek: 2,108 Union dead in one day. 1,546 Confederate dead, if
you want to count enemy dead. Out of a total of 120,000 men engaged.
That's over 3% of the forces killed. in one DAY. If we had television
coverage of that battle, popular opinion would have driven both sides
to the negotiating table.
For many people who knew the history, the word "Antietam" on the screen
at the beginning of the film <Glory > was enough to raise the hair on
the back of your neck.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
