Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MoMoney on July 14, 2003, 02:24:14 PM
-
Is the problem we’ve got in Iraq comparable to Vietnam? Well I’m a numbers guy- and I ran some numbers:
Vietnam:
1962-1972…about 3650 days.
58,185 poor souls lost their lives in this useless war.
This yields a death/rate of about 16 per day.
Iraq:
May 1 until today- 61 days
33 poor souls have lost their lives in this useless war (since official end).
This yields a death/rate of about 1.8 per day.
Vietnam …hell no.
Useless war which has alienated our allies. Stirred up the already volatile middle-east. Will deliver the Middle East to the Islamic fundamentalists on a silver platter.
HELL YES.
-
So are you in favor or against the military intervention in Iraq?
-
My bad, thought this was stating the air time for a soccer game :p
-
BTW- those Vietnam numbers a "Padded" a bit because we really didn't have a big presence until after 1962. So say 1968-1972 would yield a much higher number.
-
Perhaps they should try a new technic. Yawn, I need some coffee.
-
Originally posted by MoMoney
Will deliver the Middle East to the Islamic fundamentalists on a silver platter.
HELL YES.
Yeah look at the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. It's really taken a turn for the worst.
If you're a career terrorist.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Perhaps they should try a new technic. Yawn, I need some coffee.
Oops, read wrong somewhere. I meant the Isrealis. Between whats happening in Iraq now and how Isreal handled Palistinian aggression is vastly different. All I know is what is televised on TV so I know I dont have the complete picture of the situation in Iraq, can only guess.
I think is a matter of time before things just get better. If they can minimize casualties as much as possible, that would be a good thing. Hard to defend against some jerk in a crowd with a nade or RPG just waiting.
Then again, its difficult to replace dead family, friends, or loved ones. Ha, theres your recipe for neverending Jihad.
-
I think if Iraq fought Vietnam, Vietnam would win. The Vietnamese have huge numbers of water buffalo and could smash through Iraqi lines with ease.
-
Right or wrong, they have to find and kill Hussein asap. I very much doubt he's directly involved in the attacks, but he serves as some strong motivation I'm sure.
I know it's easier said than done, but I really am stumped as to why it's *this* hard to capture both him and OBL. It's just weird.
-
Only 20 attacks a day on US troops, no big deal.
-
The only thing Vietnam and the Iraq war have in common is that they both appear to have started with trumped up reasons.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by MoMoney
Iraq vs Vietnam
Ditka 82, Vietnam 23, Iraq 14.
-
Didn't the French have something to do with Vietnam. Were they not the ones to stir this whole mess up to begin with.
-
Didn't the French have something to do with Vietnam. Were they not the ones to stir this whole mess up to begin with.
Are you trolling or what?
-
Not really the whole involvement with Vietnam was due to French. The thing is France returned to Vietnam after 45' when Japan surendered to Allies.
See it all started in 1945, Japan ousted the Vichy French and assumed direct rule over Vietnam; the Viet Minh stepped up their anti-Japanese activities. By the time Japan surrendered to the United States, in August 1945, it represented the strongest political force in Vietnam. On September 2, 1945, using the words of the American Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed Vietnam a free and independent country. His hope was that his wartime allies would restrain the French from attempting to dominate Vietnam ever again. Instead, the British, in the south, and the Nationalist Chinese, in the north, enabled the French to return. Within a year, the Viet Minh was once more fighting for the independence of Vietnam against the French.
Although the United States disapproved of French tactics, the desire to support its European ally, combined with a growing concern over Communist power in Asia, led first President Truman and then President Eisenhower into close cooperation with the French war effort. By 1954, when the Geneva Conference brought a temporary end to fighting in Vietnam, the United States was paying over 75 percent of the French war costs.
Despite the Viet Minh's massive victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu, the United States tried to persuade the French to keep fighting. The Eisenhower administration even considered the direct use of U.S. military force, including combat troops and nuclear weapons. Neither the British nor the U.S. Congress was enthusiastic, however. Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles ultimately acknowledged the Geneva Agreements, which divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, a temporary demarcation line meant to separate French and Viet Minh forces until elections scheduled for 1956. Ho Chi Minh firmly controlled the area north of the line, while the area south of the 17th parallel was put in the hands of the conservative nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem. It was hoped that the nationwide elections scheduled for 1956 would lead to national reunification.
We never saw the reunification...
-
We never saw the reunification...
Yes we did....1976 I believe....
-
I think your right.. I should have phrased it to our enterance into the conflict in 60's
-
Vietnam would kick Iraq's butt!
-
nuchpatrick it's a pretty narrow point of view and extremly uncomplete.
-
comparing iraq to vietnam disgraces the people that served in vietnam.
Its a terrible thing our troops have to go through especially with the administration trying to lower combat wages for them though.