It's War

[RebelWithanAK]

Reuters: US soldiers' deaths for this 8 month War in Iraq have now exceeded the number of US soldiers dead for the first 4 years of the Vietnam War. And there is no end in sight.

Associated Press: Pentagon officials cagey about Selective Service notice, cite bad public relations.

I'm quaking in my fuckin' boots, man.

[G. Adams]

The intelligence of pentagon insiders is astounding. The population of Iraq is against you occupying their country, leading to the beginnings of a guerilla war, and they want to expand on this?

This what happens when you have a bonesman in office.

[indierockboy]

you have to keep in mind the number of troops in vietnam during the first four years vs. the number of troops currently in iraq. in order to kill a high volume of people, you need a high volume of people. and, something that doesn't seem to correlate that story at all, is that the first combat troops arrived in vietnam in 1965. up to that point, it was mainly military advisors.

i don't think it's fair to make comparisons to viet nam.

yet.

[RebelWithanAK]

There were 16,000 soldiers there in 1963, increased to 21,000 in 1964. You're thinking of Marines, which - true - didn't come until 1965.

However, the increased ratio of deaths in Vietnam were partly due to the fact that there were fewer troops, and thus less control over the situation. Now, while we do have 160,000 troops or more in Iraq, we're either going to have to pull back or add more, now that it's well beyond time to start rotating them out. We don't have any more troops to add, and our biggest hope, Turkey, said no.

The war isn't ending for America any time soon, and we can't sustain our presence. What do you think is going to happen?

[G. Adams]

Well our government just said it was prepared to send more troops if needed. So in order to cover up our mess's in Iraq, we'll be leaving Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. So our genuine humanitarian commitiments, or more overtly so at least, are going to turn into disasters no-one will report, just so it looks like we are doing something in Iraq.

[indierockboy]

the situation at the time in vietnam was very much different than the situation in iraq now. for example up until 1964, there were no air attacks. this chart illustrates how the troop strength of this period of the war differed from later periods. the attacks and engagements at that point were almost entirely small scale. if you compare the number of troops to the number of casualties, you'll see a direct correlation. there was also a very significant difference in enemy troop strength.

i've not been able to find anything that corroborates the level of "soldiers" you claim. i've found "mainly advisors". link please?

while iraq is certainly a blunder of significant proportions, i don't think a comparison between the two wars is very accurate. although it does look like "terrorism" is the new "communism".

[indierockboy]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Well our government just said it was prepared to send more troops if needed. So in order to cover up our mess's in Iraq, we'll be leaving Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. So our genuine humanitarian commitiments, or more overtly so at least, are going to turn into disasters no-one will report, just so it looks like we are doing something in Iraq.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

i believe i also read that the reservists are going to be called to action.

[RebelWithanAK]

1) G. Adams is British.
2) Our reservists are already deployed.
3) 16k, 21k.

[indierockboy]

1. i know g.adam is in the uk. i didn't insinuate otherwise. it was a continuation of his thought. "the uk is sending in more troops" "the us is calling upon the reservists"
2. reservists called up, or on notice
3. merci, mais je veux le soldats. il y a un difference.

[RebelWithanAK]

2) Your site says this about reservists:

The U.S. military is relying on reservists to round out its forces in Iraq, with at least 20,000 reservists among its 130,000 troops. While the United States says it doesn't plan to increase its forces, it needs fresh troops to replace those going home.

3) What part of US servicemen don't you understand?

[indierockboy]

2)they're planning on replacing existing troops with reservists, as is my understanding. that would increase the overall number of reservists. also, at least 5 000 of those 20 000 are volunteers, whereas reservists are now being called upon. it is my understanding that the number of reservists will increase, to replace the regulars who are on rotation home.

3) i'm looking for numbers that acknowledge a difference between the hundreds (potentially thousands) of "advisors" and actual "soldiers".

[G. Adams]

Our reserves, the TA and the Royal Naval Reservists, are already deployed.

That doesn't really make sense to me, your going to remove the professional soldiers and replace them with part timers? I can understand if we're just talking about the doctors and cooks, but wouldn't it be better to have full time soldiers in the primary and secondary roles?

[indierockboy]

sending in the marines
reservists called upon
more on reservists

there are 20 000 reservists, that number may go up to 43 000, which would double the number of active reservists in iraq, assuming all 20 000 currently in iraq rotate home.