[eklipse]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...p;section=news

A Reuters analysis of U.S. Defence Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on December 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces currently number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.

Larger still is the number of American casualties from the broader U.S. war on terrorism, which has produced 488 military deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Southwest Asia and other locations.

"We are making progress......"

[einmakom]

2,100,000 served in Vietnam in the years from 1964-73. This was exactly 24% of the 8444000 who were in the active Armed Forces during those years, but only 8% of the 26000000 Americans who were eligible for military service. The vast majority of Americans who were eligible by age but did not serve in the Armed Forces were exempted by reason of physical, mental, psychiatric, or moral failure; or they were given status deferments because they were college students, fathers, teachers, engineers, or conscientious objectors. Others were simply ineligible by age phasing, high lottery number, or they joined the Reserves or Nat'l Guard. Still others, a small number relatively, refused to register for the draft; some went to Canada or Sweden, few were actually prosecuted, and most were eventually pardoned by Pres Carter's ExecOrd in 1977.


The DoD database shows that of 2100000 men and women who served in Vietnam, 58152 or 2.7% were killed. The Army suffered the most casualties, 38179 or 66% of all casualties. As a branch, however, the USMC lost the highest percentage of its own men (5%) which in turn accounted for 25.5% of all casualties.

So far, as of Nov 14th 2003 at 10am, 399 US dead, both hostile and non-hostile deaths taken into account. If your 130,000 number for soldiers serving in Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom is correct, then the percentage of US casualties lost thus far is 0.30%.

[Sven G]

... "Served": what an idiotic concept! Even if you believe in nationalism, you shouldn't "serve" a nation - rather, contribute in building it (with deleterious effects, probably: see the worldwide history - wars, money for the sake of money, "power" for the sake of "power", etc. etc., in a never-ending self-referential vicious circle).

Servilism is - IMHO - nothing but "the other side of the coin" of authoritarianism.

[Spliffdaddy]

But you gotta live somewhere...

[Echelon]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... "Served": what an idiotic concept! Even if you believe in nationalism, you shouldn't "serve" a nation - rather, contribute in building it (with deleterious effects, probably: see the worldwide history - wars, money for the sake of money, "power" for the sake of "power", etc. etc., in a never-ending self-referential vicious circle).

Servilism is - IMHO - nothing but "the other side of the coin" of authoritarianism.

that's your own feeling. However, many Americans feel military service is service--they are proud to help defend their nation and make many personal sacrifices for a greater good, regardless of the political party of whatever President is in office. And many Americans have given their lives in the service of defending your principles and freedoms--the same which allow you to sit back and deride others for their sacrifices and willingness to make them.

To your elitist post I say:

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
2,100,000 served in Vietnam in the years from 1964-73. This was exactly 24% of the 8444000 who were in the active Armed Forces during those years, but only 8% of the 26000000 Americans who were eligible for military service. The vast majority of Americans who were eligible by age but did not serve in the Armed Forces were exempted by reason of physical, mental, psychiatric, or moral failure; or they were given status deferments because they were college students, fathers, teachers, engineers, or conscientious objectors. Others were simply ineligible by age phasing, high lottery number, or they joined the Reserves or Nat'l Guard. Still others, a small number relatively, refused to register for the draft; some went to Canada or Sweden, few were actually prosecuted, and most were eventually pardoned by Pres Carter's ExecOrd in 1977.


The DoD database shows that of 2100000 men and women who served in Vietnam, 58152 or 2.7% were killed. The Army suffered the most casualties, 38179 or 66% of all casualties. As a branch, however, the USMC lost the highest percentage of its own men (5%) which in turn accounted for 25.5% of all casualties.

So far, as of Nov 14th 2003 at 10am, 399 US dead, both hostile and non-hostile deaths taken into account. If your 130,000 number for soldiers serving in Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom is correct, then the percentage of US casualties lost thus far is 0.30%.

The war in Iraq is still in it's early stages - despite what Bush may say. As the article notes, most of the troops deaths in Vietnam occurred in the later stages of the conflict - the fact that troop deaths in Iraq have already surpassed those in the first few years of the Vietnam conflict in only a couple of months, does not bode well for the future.

To add to this, attacks on troops are increasing in frequency not decreasing - and there does not appear to be any sort of viable resolution to the situation in sight.

I wonder what percentage of US casualities is 'too many'.

[MacGorilla]

Iraq is no Vietnam and probably will not be. A much closer analogy would be what the Soviets faced in Afghanistan,

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Echelon:
that's your own feeling. However, many Americans feel military service is service--they are proud to help defend their nation and make many personal sacrifices for a greater good, regardless of the political party of whatever President is in office. And many Americans have given their lives in the service of defending your principles and freedoms--the same which allow you to sit back and deride others for their sacrifices and willingness to make them.

To your elitist post I say:

Elitist? Maybe (in a constructive way, IMHO)...

But wars aren't unavoidable: yet another time the "conservative" mindset assumes that something is "just as it is" (and there's nothing you can do about it, etc. etc.), without even trying to imagine better solutions!

So, I'll add a big for this apathetic (and servile/authoritarian) way of seeing things, and an even bigger for the consequences of useless (for the general populace) wars!

[einmakom]

Perhaps you read too much into the word service.

Everything is a service one respect or another.

Literally, you pay a waiter for the meal you receive and tip him for his having been attentive to your needs. He brings you the food you ordered promptly because he values your patronage and your money.

He's serving you literally, and you're performing the service of paying him. He values your money more than he does the food, and you value the food more than he does the money.

The US Military is voluntary service. The soldier who signs up of his own free will values the experience, learning, and benefits (payment for education following completion of service, etc.) The US government and by extension the American people value his willingness to place himself in harms' way to protect us.

Now, to address the second portion of your post.

You regard wars as useless.

That is a simplistic view that rules out the fact that war can be just. War is brutal and gruesome, but war can save lives and create freedom. The American Revolution was such a war. World War II was a just war. War is the last option, but it remains a valid and necessary option.

Perhaps you regard war as useless because you believe peace and normalized trade relations can always be achieved through negotiation?

America is the only nation out there willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for the sake of world peace. We are the engine for the global economy, we are the chief guarantor of global stability and security, and we are the model for countless nations in countless realms - from law to politics to education. More importantly, America understands - much like the British did in the 19th century - that such delicate machinery needs to be maintained as well as protected from saboteurs. September 11 reminded us of that.


Oh sure, Europeans care about peace, but they believe it can be attained through talking. In his wonderful book "Of Paradise and Power," historian Robert Kagan argues that America and Europe no longer share a common worldview. Americans believe it is necessary to use force when force is necessary. Europeans - in large part because they don't have the option of using force - believe that force is never necessary. America is from Mars, Europe from Venus, Kagan writes.


"Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out," Karl Kaiser, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs said in the Chicago Tribune last year during the lead-up to the Iraq war. "Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world."


Kaiser's rosy version of history perfectly reflects the unreality of the European point of view. First, the United States has maintained peace in North America since 1865. Second, what about that whole mess in the former Yugoslavia that consumed most of the 1990s and still requires U.S. troops to keep the peace? Just goes to show, the European model of negotiation is not applicable worldwide.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Everything is a service one respect or another.

Literally, you pay a waiter for the meal you receive and tip him for his having been attentive to your needs. He brings you the food you ordered promptly because he values your patronage and your money.

He's serving you literally, and you're performing the service of paying him. He values your money more than he does the food, and you value the food more than he does the money. [...]

Interesting post. Of course, I don't agree so much with your premises: is everything really a "service"? Personally, I'd prefer a free exchange based on voluntary collaboration, rather than a formal concept of "serving in exhange for money", etc.

For example, I wouldn't go to a restaurant with waiters, as I feel being served something quite embarassing and unnatural: even when I'm in self-services, I always try to clean up the table by myself, instead of waiting for the exploited and underpaid personnel to do it. Many completely useless forms of work could be completely avoided if everyone were more autonomous, instead of "serving" (a rather quantitative concept, also, tightly tied to the commodification of everything that the neo-mercantilistic agenda is trying to carry on): of course, this would require a radically different society, where people aren't forced to work "for a living" (= "to survive", rather), but are free to collaborate in a peaceful, active and solidaristic way.

Are some wars unavoidable, as you said? Difficult question (which would require a time machine to answer, maybe)! I'd rather say that people can modify the political/economical circumstances and modalities of human relations such as to make wars completely useless in the future...

[Zimphire]

What a silly comparison.

Some people try too hard me thinks.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Interesting post. Of course, I don't agree so much with your premises: is everything really a "service"? Personally, I'd prefer a free exchange based on voluntary collaboration, rather than a formal concept of "serving in exhange for money", etc..

Except that it is voluntary- the waiter is employed because he chooses to. You eat at the establishment he works at because you choose to. You pay because the service and food are worth less than your money to you. He works and brings the food because your money is worth more to him than the food and his work. You're both getting a good deal that is a voluntary exchange, free from coercion.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Many completely useless forms of work could be completely avoided if everyone were more autonomous, instead of "serving"...

yes, but that would mean an unemployment rate of 50% for the us.


oh and on your post!

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Except that it is voluntary- the waiter is employed because he chooses to.

pfff - of course it wouldn't have anything to do with him having to make money for a living...

[zigzag]

I don't think the comparison is very meaningful. Vietnam started out with military advisers and escalated over the course of many years. Iraq was a full-scale invasion, which was over in a matter of weeks, with a very low casualty rate. A full-scale invasion of Vietnam would have resulted in a vastly higher casualty rate.

This isn't to say that I'm not concerned about events in Iraq, or that there aren't any similarities, or that public sentiment isn't similarly affected by the casualties, only that I don't think this particular numerical comparison is very meaningful.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by nas t. ho:
pfff - of course it wouldn't have anything to do with him having to make money for a living...

Yeah - that was my thought, too...

Why would someone freely choose such a job as a waiter? A little strange, if s/he is not, in some way, forced by circumstances to do that.

BTW, I think that automation could cater for many "useless" (from an ethical point of view) jobs: "of course" (!), on the contrary, a responsible use of automation isn't desirable for an exploitative capitalist ("neo-liberalist" only from the economic/financial point of view!) society, as there would be nobody to exploit with stupid mansions.

For automation and self-regulation, one could think about - just as an example, also inspired from the above posts - a self-managed, automated self-service restaurant, with no waiters and servants, where you yourself are also kindly invited to actively collaborate (according to your capacities) in the maintaining of things - that wouldn't be bad, IMHO...

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Yeah - that was my thought, too...

Why would someone freely choose such a job as a waiter? A little strange, if s/he is not, in some way, forced by circumstances to do that.

BTW, I think that automation could cater for many "useless" (from an ethical point of view) jobs: "of course" (!), on the contrary, a responsible use of automation isn't desirable for an exploitative capitalist ("neo-liberalist" only from the economic/financial point of view!) society, as there would be nobody to exploit with stupid mansions.

For automation and self-regulation, one could think about - just as an example, also inspired from the above posts - a self-managed, automated self-service restaurant, with no waiters and servants, where you yourself are also kindly invited to actively collaborate (according to your capacities) in the maintaining of things - that wouldn't be bad, IMHO...

You choose a job as a waiter for one of two reasons. Either you like the work, or you use it to earn money to pay for education/training to get a job in a different field. In either case, it helps you put food on the table while you satisfy a goal-- but in either case, it is completely voluntary. No one forces someone to work as a waiter.

Besides, wouldn't your automated system take jobs away from people? Isn't that more reprehensible to you?

Capitalism is voluntary exchange based on desires.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't think the comparison is very meaningful. Vietnam started out with military advisers and escalated over the course of many years. Iraq was a full-scale invasion, which was over in a matter of weeks, with a very low casualty rate. A full-scale invasion of Vietnam would have resulted in a vastly higher casualty rate.

This isn't to say that I'm not concerned about events in Iraq, or that there aren't any similarities, or that public sentiment isn't similarly affected by the casualties, only that I don't think this particular numerical comparison is very meaningful.

It makes a catchy headline, but I don't see any real significance.

The Vietnam comparisons are over done, for the most part. I think the political similarities might be striking, but the military comparisons are quite feeble.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Capitalism is voluntary exchange based on desires.

Really? Not that likely, if you take a closer look at today's world...

As for the "automation = less jobs" question, I don't think it's a valid one, in the modified context I envisage: which is that of some form of "distributed power", self-managed, federal society, based on solidarity rather than "competition" - something quite different (and potentially much more advanced and "modern") than today's capitalistic, neo-"liberal" (in the classic meaning of purely economic liberalism, of course) world.

The problem with this purely business-oriented neo-liberalism - or, more properly, neo-conservatism, in general - is that it only tries to ensure liberty (to "serve" and oppress!) in the economic and egoistic sphere: thus, also, essentially negating basic human solidarity and liberty on a broader, more evolved level...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Echelon:
And many Americans have given their lives in the service of defending your principles and freedoms--the same which allow you to sit back and deride others for their sacrifices and willingness to make them.

To your elitist post I say:

That should have been Our principles and freedoms.

And yes many Americans gave their lives in the wars over here. But lets take a look at some numbers shall we?

World War II

1. Soviet: 21 300 000 casualties
2. China: 11 324 000
3. Germany: 7 000 000
4. Poland 7 000 000 (about 3 million of those were Jews)
5. Japan: 1 800 000

and further down the list

15. USA: 295 000 (almost all military personel)

So yes, thanks for the help (even if it came a bit late) but shut up about the "huge sacrifice" and so on. You came late to this war, after Europeans had fought for a long time while US companies made huge amounts of money by selling us weapons. Why is it that the Soviet (Russia) never gets any credit for their sacrifices? Why is it that no other nation in the world talks about the huge sacrifices they made like the US?

I could bring up the list for WWI as well but that shows even better what a small contribution your nation gave to the freedom of the European nations.

So once again, thanks for the help. But stop acting like we owe you something.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Logic:
That should have been Our principles and freedoms.

And yes many Americans gave their lives in the wars over here. But lets take a look at some numbers shall we?

World War II

1. Soviet: 21 300 000 casualties
2. China: 11 324 000
3. Germany: 7 000 000
4. Poland 7 000 000 (about 3 million of those were Jews)
5. Japan: 1 800 000

and further down the list

15. USA: 295 000 (almost all military personel)

As an American I say that although any deaths are bad in any case, Amnerica should get off the high-horse as if we gave all, we made some huge sacrifice. Take a look at how the Soviets (yup, commie pinkos) were absolutely decimated in WWII.

Bush is in a tough spot. On one hand, he'd be callous if he said "It's not that many deaths." On the other, it would be political suicide to admit that the death count is bothersome and starting to wear on most Americans. Damned if he does, damned if he don't. But it was his choice to send these men to die and if this is the worst thing that happens to him because of it, he's lucky.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... "Served": what an idiotic concept! Even if you believe in nationalism, you shouldn't "serve" a nation - rather, contribute in building it (with deleterious effects, probably: see the worldwide history - wars, money for the sake of money, "power" for the sake of "power", etc. etc., in a never-ending self-referential vicious circle).

Servilism is - IMHO - nothing but "the other side of the coin" of authoritarianism.

WTF?

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Take a look at how the Soviets (yup, commie pinkos) were absolutely decimated in WWII.

How many of those were deliberately starved by Smilin' Joe? Nothing like a pogrom or twelve now and then.

The reason Americans are always on about saving the world's ass in WWII is because we did so voluntarily. We didn't have to go to war -- we CHOSE TO. As a nation we chose to make the sacrifice to defend against dictators. That's the kind of thing Americans are proud of.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
How many of those were deliberately starved by Smilin' Joe? Nothing like a pogrom or twelve now and then.

The reason Americans are always on about saving the world's ass in WWII is because we did so voluntarily. We didn't have to go to war -- we CHOSE TO. As a nation we chose to make the sacrifice to defend against dictators. That's the kind of thing Americans are proud of.

I suppose Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with it?

America considered it none of it's business until it was forced to defend itself. I'm glad we were up to the task and on the right side of the conflict, but let's not get carried away with it.

Isolationism was the dominant mood and without Japan's direct aggression, its not hard to imagine the US staying out altogether. Or at least until it was too late.

[zigzag]

FDR was trying to get the U.S. involved for some time - it's even been suggested that he let Pearl Harbor happen in order to justify it. I don't know the exact numbers but it was not a united cause until after the fact. Joseph Kennedy (Ambassador to England) and Charles Lindbergh, among others, were dead set against it, and indeed expected England to be Nazified. Seems astonishing now.

That's not to say the U.S. doesn't deserve a great deal of credit. Of course, had it not also been for the Russians, there's a good chance the Nazis would have prevailed.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by zigzag:
FDR was trying to get the U.S. involved for some time - it's even been suggested that he let Pearl Harbor happen in order to justify it. I don't know the exact numbers but it was not a united cause until after the fact. Joseph Kennedy (Ambassador to England) and Charles Lindbergh, among others, were dead set against it, and indeed expected England to be Nazified. Seems astonishing now.

That's not to say the U.S. doesn't deserve a great deal of credit. Of course, had it not also been for the Russians, there's a good chance the Nazis would have prevailed.

Some historians also believe FDR was set against going to war, and had to be pushed into it, as a means of hiding his failed economic policies. FDR had favored and pushed isolationist foreign policy in congress for four years prior to going to war. FDR, in response to the failure of his policies at home, sought US intervention in the war as the solution to his political and economic problems - it was part of a concerted policy by FDR and his closest advisors to socialize the American economy, smash domestic opposition, and build up the Soviet Union.

The only practical difference between FDR and fascist dictators was that he was far less successful in resolving the economic crisis._ He made the Depression worse and even prolonged it._ When he was elected, there were 11.6 million unemployed; seven years later, there were still 11.3 million out of work._ In 1932, there were 16.6 million on relief; in 1939, there were 19.6 million._Only the war eventually ended the depression.

During the campaign of 1940, FDR repeatedly promised to keep the country out of war and then did everything in his power to push America into the mayhem._ In March 1941, he rammed the Lend-Lease Act through Congress, although selling munitions to belligerents and conveying them were acts of war and contrary to international law._ During the Atlantic conference, FDR entered into an illegal and unconstitutional agreement with Churchill that America would go to war if Japan attacked British territory in the Far East._ He said, “I may never declare war; I may make war._ If I were to ask Congress to declare war they might argue about it for three months.”_ This was an impeachable offense._ He allowed undercover British agents to operate freely and illegally within the United States._ His unprovoked belligerency toward the Japanese as well as the Germans helped cause the attack on Pearl Harbor—which he may well have been fully aware of in advance—even as he vilified and persecuted the critics of his policies as “Nazis” and “traitors.”

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I suppose Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with it?

America considered it none of it's business until it was forced to defend itself. I'm glad we were up to the task and on the right side of the conflict, but let's not get carried away with it.

Isolationism was the dominant mood and without Japan's direct aggression, its not hard to imagine the US staying out altogether. Or at least until it was too late.

I collect old newspapers. I have some from as early as 1869. I am also lucky to have the new york times magazine for the years of WWII, preceding and after. There was a great amount of discussion before the US involvement in the war, and much, if not all of it was isolationist.
The articles were more analyizing what would eventually happen to europe, as if we were bystanders versus how we should intervene. It seemed to be a foregone conclusion NOT to intervene until that point when we actually did.
In depth pieces on what would happen if or when Hitler completely controlled all of europe.
Very interesting stuff...well, to me at least.

I think the point is that present day americans like to toot their own horns about "saving" europe from hitler, but the reality is we were dragged into the conflict kicking and screaming. Of course, to our credit, once in we did help turn the tide, but its a bit revisionist to act like we were knights in shining armor, rushing in to save the european damsels in distress. There was a great deal of turning a blind eye before we ever got truly involved.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by zigzag:
FDR was trying to get the U.S. involved for some time - it's even been suggested that he let Pearl Harbor happen in order to justify it.

That is where the conspiracy nuts get the idea that Bush let 9/11 happen in order to get into the Middle East with force.

ridiculous.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Actually, I think it is you that should STFU. I can't believe you've made such an ignorant post.

Really. You sure are stupid sometimes.

that was nice.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Capitalism is voluntary exchange based on desires.

i would hardly call the "basic" instinct/need to survive a "desire".

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Really? Not that likely, if you take a closer look at today's world...

very astute analysis.

[daimoni]

.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by daimoni:
If you don't understand that... you're welcome to STFU too.

how about some constructive criticism?

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Sure. How about a basic history lesson and then get back to me?

In the beginning, the world was a molten ball of lava. Then, the lava cooled and oceans formed. Then came the dinosaurs....

--- one of my favorite lines from "Airplane"

[daimoni]

.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In the beginning, the world was a molten ball of lava. Then, the lava cooled and oceans formed. Then came the dinosaurs....

--- one of my favorite lines from "Airplane"

[Sven G]

Originally posted by finboy:
WTF?

WTF did you not understand? Read the rest of the thread, maybe...