Which War Has Been Deadlier To Americans? Vietnam Or Iraq?

[arwalden]

In other words... when the same number of weeks has passed during the Vietnam war (as have currently passed during the Iraq war) how would the casualty & death count compare?

I'm sure there's a more eloquent way to ask the question... but I hope you understand what I mean.

[DrDebug]

1. You can't really compare the two

I think Vietnam was still less, however Vietnam started very slowly for many years and then the figures jumped sky high.

[magpie]

2. So far ,Vietnam deadlier to Americans

Iraq deadlier to America.

[Montagnard]

3. Last time I ran the figures

Vietnam was....

[ThomWV]

4. We Were Loosing 150~200 Per Week In The Late '60s

Today's losses are small in comparison.

[BurtWorm]

9. I think the question is, was Vietnam as deadly as Iraq is

when the US had been involved in it as long as we have been involved in Iraq.

I think the answer is still no, if you take as the start of Vietnam conflict, not 1959 when US advisers first showed up to take over from the French, but the resolution to engage in combat, i.e., the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1965. This would make the thre-year mark 1968--a very bloody year.

[genie_weenie]

5. Iraq should really be compared to

the Spanish-Cuban-Phillipines-American War begun in 1898 with insurrection fighting in the PI from 1899-1902. The policy and guiding principles of McKinley are really what * is harkening back to...

[DrDebug]

6. Good comparison. The yellow journalism is back again as well

The only difference is that the Spanish-American war wasn't that bloody with even less casualties on either side. Especially countries like Guam and Puerto Rico just changed hands without much problems.

[genie_weenie]

7. Well, the S-A War (and after) were extremely bloody

The US had 5000+ deaths in the War, (mostly from rotten meat the War profiteers supplied the Army) but the Fillipinos suffered unspeakable savagery.

I'll have to look for specific figures but I recall from Zinn's People's History comments along the lines of 1/6 the population of Luzon being killed by warfare and Dengue fever...

[DrDebug]

13. I see the trick 379 casualties + >5000 "disease related"

It could be comparable to the Philippines. It's a subject I know very little about. Sometimes you are too arrogant and think that you have learned so many things and I've left out 1,000 of islands. The forgotten war in the Philippines which was quickly forgotten because the trenches in Flanders were even more disgusting.

[arwalden]

8. Interesting Responses... Thanks Everyone!

[0007]

10. Let's wait until this one is over.

The tract record of this fiasco is in the running to exceed Vietnam, if it isn't checked.

[eallen]

11. Vietnam was more deadly. By an order of magnitude.

The US lost 58,000 in Vietnam.

[w8liftinglady]

12. I think it's important to go beyond the death rate...wounded and injured

http://icasualties.org/oif/
I am talking serious burns,amputations,blindness,infections,and PTSD so severe it is incapacitating.
Considering this is an all-volunteer force,these numbers are significant

[Johonny]

14. You also have to consider

the wounded survival rate is important. We are simply better at saving lives today than we were 30-40 years ago.

[Montagnard]

15. I think that you have stated the difference.

Triage is much better, plus the ability to evacuate.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. As reply #2 indicated, body counts aside, it appears Iraq may be

deadlier to the nation, as Iraq and the whole phony "war on terror" construct is being used to systematically dismantle any semblance of democracy and open government here in a way that nothing during Vietnam approached.