Rumsfeld and flying

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks



SMH

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old.

I was only counting combat soldiers, like the thread title.

Ed may very well be correct for some different criterion.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into any
subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably
understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy
veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in
original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all
of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the
ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average
age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different
from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden
(false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which
only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most
of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the
percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at
97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young
black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen
year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any
subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into
any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into
any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is it a
deal or not?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and
interest
into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding
WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky
based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in
blissful
ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is
it a
deal or not?

Typical George. I asked you up front whether you'd rather read an
interesting work that convincingly puts paid to your ridiculous "Kerry's
speech before Congress was based upon sworn testimony!" (which you
compounded by making that false statement not once but twice in the same
post), or whether you'd prefer to float happily along in continuing
ignorance of the truth regarding that matter. No surprise that you have
chosen the latter--perish the thought of your reading a factual account that
by happenstance (Burkett's work was not directed at a guy who was then just
another Senator from Kennedyland) casts a pall over the veracity of your new
hero's most (in)famous moment. Being afraid of reading the truth (such as
the true nature of the WSI "testimony") is one heck of an endorsement for
your candidate, George.

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

I'd suspect it had more to do with the usual economic slump that tends to
follow such an event. Unemployment was on the rise, estimated commerce was
flatlined. The commerce and GNP numbers would take off again a year or two
later, but the unemployment numbers continued to rise rather sharply, more
than doubling from the 1945 estimate of 1.3% to 3.8% in '47, then almost
again to 6.4% in 1949.


should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.

It is a rather interesting read--don't take the wrong idea from the
aforementioned dry statistics. Burkett and his coauthor Whitley exposed
quite a few charlatan Vietnam vets and "heroes". I happened to be surfing
through the TV channels this weekend and watched a bit of the original
"First Blood". Burkett's book game me a new way of looking at that movie--I
had known that Stallone had neatly avoided military service during the war,
but I was surprised to learn that Brian Dennehy, who played the Sheriff,
apparently had a propensity for blowing a bit of smoke about his own
military service (he has claimed to have been a Vietnam vet, but in
actuality he served on Okinawa in the USMC *before* the US sent major ground
forces into the conflict).

Brooks


SMH