John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You really need to read the threads that charge has been covered ad infinitum.

Where you been?

Its just no fun without serious Sava-izing!

[Arrian]

I was just thinking that. Long time no see, Sava.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You really need to read the threads that charge has been covered ad infinitum.

Where you been?

Its just no fun without serious Sava-izing!

I haven't been around as much as I'd like. All this politics talk aggravates me. I can only do so much. I check in every so often just to see what everyone is yapping about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lemme see what I can find.

From http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html]...- US vs NVA/VC

U.S. KIAs (non-hostile deaths in brackets) - Total troops - precent dead

Entire war dead
47,378 (10,824)

1961-1965 - Kennedy/Johnson
1,864 - 184300 (1965)

1966 - Johnson
5,008 (1,045) - 385300 - 1.3%

1967 - Johnson
9,378 (1,680) - 485600 - 1.9%

1968 - Johnson
14,594 (1,919) - 536100 - 2.7%

1969 - Nixon
9,414 (2,113) - 475200 - 2%

1970 - Nixon
4,221 (1,844) - 334600 - 1.3%

1971 - Nixon
1,380 (968) - 156800 - 0.8%

1972 - Nixon
300 (261) - 24200 - 1.2%

Looks like Ned was right, somewhat. The invasion of Cambodia may have had some effect on death rates. We should note, however, that the causalty ratio rose and fell with the number of soldiers in Vietnam.

So I've failed to disprove Ned's thesis that the invasion of Cambodia saved American lives. As I stated before, however, I don't think Camodians are less vaulabe than Americans, and even if we ignore the direct deaths from the bombings and resulting famine, the "law" of unintended consequences shows the deaths of two million people which resulted from the Kmher Rouge take-over, which was made possible by the American bombing. So we may have saved seven hundred American soldiers by sacrificing millions of Camodians.

Anyone who thinks that was a good trade is evil in the true sense of the word.

[GePap]

If the invasion of Cambodia was the only variable, maybe-the problem is that at the same time 1.the nature of the enemy was changing after the VC had been decimated in 1968 and 2. the policy of Vietnamization.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara We should note, however, that the causalty ratio rose and fell with the number of soldiers in Vietnam.

But seriously for a second....

If the conflict in Iraq mirrors the Vietnam conflict, isn't this an indictment about having too many troops in harms way ala the proposal and difference Kerry espouse over the way Bush handled things?


Purely from a US casualy POV and not of the overall Iraqi governmental success.

[Arrian]

Only if you believe that the lowest numbers of U.S. casualties is the only thing that matters (and having the force available to properly keep the peace doesn't).

But if Iraq mirrors Vietnam, it's not like this really matters 'cause we're ****ed if that's the case.

-Arrian

edit: damnit, Ogie, you DanS'd me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[chequita guevara]

During my googling, I found an number of articles which said that our current casualty numbers exceeds the first two years of the Vietnam War.

Ceterus parabus, the more troops we have in Iraq would seem to indicate that more of them would be killed or injured. Our soldiers today, however, are better trained, better lead, and better equiped. Plus, in Vietnam, the U.S. also had ARVN to help "pacify" the country. Right now, we're the only game in town.

[GePap]

The military nature of Iraq is fundamentally different- the opposition in Iraq is less well trained and organized than in Vietnam, and much less effectively armed in comparison to our forces. Oy firepower is greater but less indiscriminate, so probalby less friendly fire issues as well. most importantly, medical aid is superior and keeps improving.

Unless there was a massive popular revolt it is unlikely our casualties will be anywhere near vietnam levels.

[Arrian]

Was the ARVN much better than the "security forces" we've cobbled together lately in Iraq?

Ogie - your ability to add last-second caveats is noted. This confirms your suitability for a post under my administation.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Was the ARVN much better than the "security forces" we've cobbled together lately in Iraq?

No, but there were a hell of a lot more of them.

[GePap]

Our enemies in Vietnam were far more numerous, had better support on the ground, were better armed in comparison, and our allies were incompetent and corrupt. Yes, we have no real Iraqi security forces, but all our enemies in Iraq don't hold a candle to the VC, far less the NVA.

[Arrian]

Lucky for us. But then again, our top leadership is dumber.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Yes, yes it is.