Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Post-war death toll in Iraq tops number killed in combat
Already I can hear some saying that the death toll is no-where near the Vietnam death toll. This point has been brought up before, and I would like to discuss this.
I believe this is a faulty point, for exactly the same reason the death toll in Vietnam during the war was a faulty point. During this war, a 'body count' was kept of US soldiers vs enemy casualties. The idea was that if 10 enemies were killed per US soldier, somehow this would show that the US was ahead. While I was not around for the Vietnam war (well, I was born in 1973, but I have to say I don't remember much about it), I also imagine comparisons would have been made to WWII death tolls. After all, nearly six times as many Americans were killed in WWII, right?
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into account the relative virtue of the conflict in question.
There would be very few who would not agree that America had to take part in the WWII conflict- and I am certainly not among their number. Japan could not be allowed to remain unchecked in her imperial expansion. And the atrocities of the Nazi regime speak for themselves.
However, the same didn't go for Vietnam. This war was basically the result of the dogma of the American administration, the fear that if America turned her back, the whole world would be Communist almost overnight. American soldiers found themselves dying in a country where they weren't wanted. They had little support from the American public. One could imagine that the soldiers would be reluctant to sacrifice their lives in a pointless conflict.
True, the casualties in Iraq are much lower than in Vietnam. But what was the point of the conflict? As this* speech shows, it was all about weapons of mass destruction. The welfare of the Iraqis rates exactly three sentences in that speech:
But the main concern with the Bush administration, as can be seen from the speech, were the weapons. It was all about the weapons.
Well, it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat to the US as initially thought. Now American troops are dying in a place where they aren't wanted (mainly the Sunni triangle) and with mixed support at home. So, in this sense, how long before Iraq becomes another Vietnam?
*Thanks to Frank Newgent for the link
Already I can hear some saying that the death toll is no-where near the Vietnam death toll. This point has been brought up before, and I would like to discuss this.
I believe this is a faulty point, for exactly the same reason the death toll in Vietnam during the war was a faulty point. During this war, a 'body count' was kept of US soldiers vs enemy casualties. The idea was that if 10 enemies were killed per US soldier, somehow this would show that the US was ahead. While I was not around for the Vietnam war (well, I was born in 1973, but I have to say I don't remember much about it), I also imagine comparisons would have been made to WWII death tolls. After all, nearly six times as many Americans were killed in WWII, right?
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into account the relative virtue of the conflict in question.
There would be very few who would not agree that America had to take part in the WWII conflict- and I am certainly not among their number. Japan could not be allowed to remain unchecked in her imperial expansion. And the atrocities of the Nazi regime speak for themselves.
However, the same didn't go for Vietnam. This war was basically the result of the dogma of the American administration, the fear that if America turned her back, the whole world would be Communist almost overnight. American soldiers found themselves dying in a country where they weren't wanted. They had little support from the American public. One could imagine that the soldiers would be reluctant to sacrifice their lives in a pointless conflict.
True, the casualties in Iraq are much lower than in Vietnam. But what was the point of the conflict? As this* speech shows, it was all about weapons of mass destruction. The welfare of the Iraqis rates exactly three sentences in that speech:
(more of an appeal to the gallery than actual concern about the Iraqi people, IMO, but you decide)
But the main concern with the Bush administration, as can be seen from the speech, were the weapons. It was all about the weapons.
Well, it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat to the US as initially thought. Now American troops are dying in a place where they aren't wanted (mainly the Sunni triangle) and with mixed support at home. So, in this sense, how long before Iraq becomes another Vietnam?
*Thanks to Frank Newgent for the link
