SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (285554)5/9/2006 12:15:31 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576368
 
No I don't have a crystal ball to see the future. Neither do you but it doesn't stop you from making predictions about any number of issues, esp. involving oil.

The enemy in Iraq is significantly less numerous and less equipped and supported than the enemy we faced in Vietnam was. Also our military is more capable even on a relative basis, and our medical care is much better.

Casualties greatly increased in Vietnam after the first three years because the war got much bigger. Both the war as a whole, and our involvmenet in it where small at the three year point. The first American servicemen killed in Vietnam were killed in 1957. The Gulf on Tonkin incident was in 1964. US troop strength in country didn't peak until 1969. Observing that there where more American deaths in Iraq in three years after the beginning of a large invasion, than there where three years after a small number of advisers where inserted in to Vietnam is pretty meaningless. If your going to count low level involvement in the fighting, well we have had a low level conflict with Saddam's regime for years, on and off since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

english.uiuc.edu
landscaper.net

What about the badly wounded...

The numbers are closer but still Iraq is a much smaller war and the odds of the severely wounded equaling the number of severely wounded in Vietnam is very small.