Article

2003-11-14 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Murat 2003-11-14 5:18:36 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 From 1962 to '64,most of the fighting was done by the Vietnamese.Surprising that the Reuters chose the time period just before the Americans started sending serious ground troops over,no?

I should also mention that the casualty rate for the American troops is many,many times over that of the US troops in the first two years of WWII.Now that is shocking,Murat.

Posted by El Id 2003-11-14 6:33:23 AM|| 2003-11-14 6:33:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Never mind that from 1961 to 1964 we were only peripherally involved in Vietnam, only providing air support, advising/training, with no more than 17,000 troops involved on the ground.

The gulf of tonkin resolution didn't happen until August of 1964 (three years after the "start" of vietnam war).

A better comparison would be starting in 1965 some time in the middle, when troop levels reach 60,000.

If you want to get pedantic about it, why not start measuring from 1991, when Operation Desert Storm happened? We've been flying combat missions ever since.

If you'd bother to normalize the data, you'd see that the casualty rate per 1000 soldiers in Vietnam was about 10x it is the Iraq.

But even then, the information is meaningless because the conflicts are completely different. Vietnam was a combination of military campaigns mixed with wide spread guerilla combat.

But not that that will deter you from dragging up whatever specious links that you can show that the US is doomed to failure.

p.s. How many turkish troops have died fighting the Kurdish rebels? Even reading the Turkish government sites, that conflict sounds more like vietnam than the US in Iraq.

Posted by RussSchultz 2003-11-14 6:42:53 AM|| 2003-11-14 6:42:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 El+Russ,agreed.Typical of Murat.Always trying to compare apples and oranges.

Posted by Raptor 2003-11-14 7:37:00 AM|| 2003-11-14 7:37:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm surprised that it took Reuters this long to develop this angle. They will keep this bogus comparison in the can for any future conflict as well.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-14 8:21:53 AM|| 2003-11-14 8:21:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm almost looking forward to 2008 when Hillary is president. Finally an end to all the diaper-clad liberal crying, moaning, carping & spoon banging. Let the payback begin.

Posted by eyeyeye 2003-11-14 8:24:08 AM|| 2003-11-14 8:24:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 what month did US marines arrive at Da Nang in '65? that would seem the suitable "start date" for comparison purposes.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-14 9:42:07 AM|| 2003-11-14 9:42:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 There's no telling how many Americans were killed in the early phases of the Vietnam conflict... a lot of it was black.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-14 9:46:12 AM|| 2003-11-14 9:46:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964,

Reuters doesn't know diddly squat about the Vietnam War. If they did, they wouldn't be publishing misleading crap like this.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-14 10:05:31 AM|| 2003-11-14 10:05:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 eyeyeye:

I'm almost looking forward to 2008 when Hillary is president...Let the payback begin.

That's what I said in 2000: "Let's see what the Republicans do when there are endless investigations into whether, possibly, perhaps, at some time in the past, someone, somewhere, might've made an extra dime because of their friendship with Bush, which will not cease until everyone in the damn country has been subpoenaed."

After 9/11, my interest in partisan "payback" waned. Considerably.

Say, Murat, you wouldn't want to try to stop being so bleeding predictable, would you? "What's this? A link to an 'All is lost' article which goes out of its way to make specious comparisons? Must be Murat's doing."

Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-11-14 11:26:18 AM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2003-11-14 11:26:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Vietnam KIA rate (according to Reuters numbers) would be about 2 percent.
In Iraq, the numbers come out to about 3 tenths of one percent!
Quite a comparison!

Posted by Greg 2003-11-14 11:27:24 AM|| 2003-11-14 11:27:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 LH - 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed, 8 March 1965. As early as '62 we had a helo squadron there in support of S.Nam vs. the V.C. After Tonkin and Pleiku LBJ finally grew some nuts (but not any brains) and you all know the rest. Also as early as August '65 during OPERATION STARLITE the V.C. were dealt their first huge defeat of the war when the 7th Marine Regiment essentially destroyed the 1st V.C. Regt. It was the first truly combined arms/tactical operation for us. 1 Battalion by helo, 1 by foot, & 1 by amphib assault - trapped the V.C. on the Van Tuong Peninsula, 1,000 V.C. KIAs as a result.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-14 12:37:31 PM|| 2003-11-14 12:37:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Makes you wonder why Reuters didn't compare the Iraq fatalities to American fatalities in the first two years of WWII (Sept. 1, 1939 to Sept 1, 1941). Iraq fatalities are probably MUCH LARGER. I googled for the WWII figures, couldn't find them. The sites I found either had total figures only, or by-year figures starting in 1941. Do any of you guys know a site, off the bat, that has fatalities to 9/1/41?

Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-11-14 1:35:44 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2003-11-14 1:35:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Angie - no, I don't have a site, but I can give you a few 'ferinstances' that may help.

The Japanese bombed and sank the USS Panay, an American gunboat on the Yangtse in 1937(?) that killed something like 12 and wounded 30+. They also sank three Standard Oil tankers, with loss of civilian lives. The US Destroyer Reuben James was sunk by a German submarine on Oct 31, 1941, leading to the deaths of some 60 US sailors. There were some dozen other events, ranging from minor to major, where US personnel were killed, mostly considered "accidental", during wartime situations where American embassy personnel were under attack along with the rest of the local population. Total numbers from all sources is probably around 250, below current Iraqi losses.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-14 2:09:52 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-14 2:09:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 And don't forget the Pearl Harbor attack occured in 1941. There were a few nasty naval engagements in 1942 as well. If you only consider ground pounders you have a point, otherwise WW2 clearly wins.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-14 4:29:19 PM|| 2003-11-14 4:29:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 To quote someone here or at LGF...

"If this is worse that Vietnam can we start beating up the hippies now?"

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-14 4:47:04 PM|| 2003-11-14 4:47:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Gentlemen, grasp your truncheons!

Posted by Sgt.DT 2003-11-14 5:59:31 PM|| 2003-11-14 5:59:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 DT & SHIP, I am with you! Lets got crack some hippie noggins!

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-14 6:41:55 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:41:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Old Patriot---thanks, but the Panay was before 9/1/39, and the Reuben James was after 9/1/41, so those are outside my time frame. (I'm only going to compare apples to oranges, not to meteorites or hedgehogs, like Reuters.)

And it was 115 on the Reuben James.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-11-14 7:04:10 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2003-11-14 7:04:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Lessee...the Turkish military announced a few months back that about 230 soldiers were to be tried for huuman rights abuses, including the rape of a Kurdish woman. What's that in proportion to the number of Turkish soliders involved in ops against Kurdish rebels?

Posted by Pappy 2003-11-14 9:33:03 PM|| 2003-11-14 9:33:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Murat - what is about "Yup. We should prob'ly just hang it up and go home... "

there is no we here. nice find but totally offbase. the first three years of vietnam were, for american forces, no where near the intensity of the war in iraq.

Angie Schultz - learn your history. the first two years of wwii was very bloody for american forces (1941-1943).

Do any of you guys know a site, off the bat, that has fatalities to 9/1/41??? Are we talking about american casulties or allied? because there were many battles from poland - france - low countries - africa

if you are comparing american casualties in iraq to the 1939-1941 periord your comparsion is skewed. we were not officially at war during this period, there were a few instances, as old patriot pointed out, but no major combat for american forces. but we did have major combat in iraq.
there is now way iraq can come even close to the losses of wwii. wwii clearly wins in all categories - except for speed and violence of the american forces.

Posted by Dan 2004-2-18 12:12:52 PM|| 2004-2-18 12:12:52 PM|| Front Page Top

09:10 Martin Stephen
12:12 Dan
09:11 Super Hose
03:31 Dave
01:46 Steven Den Beste
23:53 PBMcL
23:37 Dan Darling
23:35 Boris A.Kupershmidt
23:30 CrazyFool
23:26 CrazyFool
23:24 Boris A.Kupershmidt
23:22 eLarson
23:22 Robert Crawford
23:09 Gasse Katze
22:50 Mike
22:46 Jarhead
22:39 Anonymous
22:34 Robert Crawford
22:22 Stephen
22:05 Jarhead
22:04 Alaska Paul
21:52 Stonecutters
21:40 Robert Crawford
21:33 Pappy