vurbano said:
I didnt compare anything. I contrasted the casualty rate it to WWII and Vietnam after they were introduced into the arguement by others. That data is necessary when contrasting casualty rates. The two wars are very different, NOT similar, NOT comparable, far less lives are being lost and the military forces were defeated long ago. That was not the case in Vietnam. This casualty rate is crucial in dispelling the myth that somehow this is as bad as Vietnam and we need public outrage to end the war.
-edited for Chado's understanding
Statistically, I completely agree with you although I do not believe that a pure statistical comparison is enough justification to consider Iraq a success. I also challenge you to present that argument to any person who lost someone in any war.
I do believe that Vietnam and Iraq are similar in a few areas. Both are/were fought out of fear of "isms", Communisim and Terrorism. I know that sounds like a stupid argument, but if you think about it, it really isn't. Both are generated from fear. Remember Joe McCarthy? Remember the Cuban Missle Crisis? One could argue that was just as frightening to run through daily air raid drills and the constant speculation that your neighbor was a communist. It's my opinion that this administration also used fear to validate the Iraq war and also to maintain the status quo in Washington during times of election.
Both wars are/were fought without an understanding of the cultures within the location of where they were fought. This is a very important point that really doesn't get enough attention.
I also think both are/were unpopular wars and after all if the public does nothing to disagree with it, then nothing will be done to stop it. After all this is a government of the people, correct?
I will also add that Vietnam and Iraq cannot be compared on many levels due to the overall political climate of the world, but refusing to see what happened in Vietnam may be the downfall of our efforts in Iraq.