Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:39 PM
Original message |
A serious question abut Iraq casualties |
|
I wonder if there's any way to make a comparison of our casulaties in Iraq to the casualties we suffered in Vietnam, but with a factor that acconts for lives saved now that would have been lost then.
Even in the face of ill equipped soldiers in Iraq, the fact is they're generally far better armored now than they were back then. Also, evacuation and medical care is far better now than then.
Without assuming any more deaths than the 1700+ currently reported, I wonder how our casualties now compare with our casualties then.
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It took 5 years into the Viet Nam war to lose 1000 troops IIRC |
DrDebug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. That's true, but it really picked up when LBJ got involved |
|
He turned it into a slaughterhouse which was many times worse than what we are seeing now in Iraq.
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Those are the raw numbers |
|
My question was how we compare **after** making an allowance for the men today who suffer huge injuries but manage to survive because we're beeter armored and cared for now than then.
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I dont think you can because medically we can survive trauma |
|
now that we couldn't survive then as well. So you'd first have to consider whether the survival was due to medical advances or better protection..
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Yes, I understand that, but in the end there's little difference,
|
|
as least as it relates to my perhaps inartfully asked question.
I've felt for a while that because of **either** better personal armor **or** better medical care, or **both**, we have fewer deaths and more injuries. I was hoping to be able to compare one to the other.
Perhaps it would serve the same purpose, for the sake of such a comparison, the compare the combined total of deaths and injuries for each conflict, establish a percentage of injry to death, and get to the result that way.
|
MichiganVote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-19-05 01:48 PM
Response to Original message |
5. These soldiers are not better armored. Roadside bombs account |
|
for the majority of wounded and casualties. Soldiers are being forced to buy their own equipment just to survive. Might better factor in the age and availability of satisfactory equipment, Nam' vs. Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember, we are fighting in two countries, not just one.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 06:26 AM
Response to Original message |