Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

onenote

(46,071 posts)

5. I'm not sure I follow your logic

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Mon Jul 9, 2012, 02:52 PM

Jul 2012

The population was smaller at the time of WWII than at the time of the Vietnam War, but that didn't deter the country from waging that war. Far more of those serving during WWII were draftees (both overall and as a percentage of those serving) than during Vietnam. And, of course, far more died during WWII than during the Vietnam War.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wonder if Vietnam war would have ended years earlier …without the baby boomers. [View all] raccoon Jul 2012 OP

It would have ended years sooner without the draft. The reason draftees were eventually sent pnwmom Jul 2012 #1

Bush took care of the lack of cannon fodder by enlisting non-citizens and granting it if they lived. freshwest Jul 2012 #2

Without the boomers history would have been so different it would be pointless to talk about it.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #3

It wasn't "ended" it was lost...even with the drafted boomers. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #4

I'm not sure I follow your logic onenote Jul 2012 #5

Roughly one third were draftees, though many likely enlisted to have a little more yellowcanine Jul 2012 #6