posted on April 6, 2004 06:26:34 AM newBut here....if you two armchair generals want the lastest news from the DoD [which kiara states we shouldn't always believe what our government tells us.....probably especially the one's that know what they're talking about]
Of course we should not believe everything our government tells us, linda. This administration gives us much to illustrate the need to have caution on that score.
Yesterday it was reported on CNN, MSNBC and other media that General John Abizaid, the head of Central Command asked his staff to determine how the force could be bolstered in a "worst case" scenario. He was asking for the consideration of a contingency plan. He wasn't speaking the company line.
That line incredibly states that a new government will be installed by June in the middle of this chaos.
As Kennedy said, Iraq has become George Bush's Vietnam. This country needs a new president.
posted on April 6, 2004 04:22:38 PM newRumsfeld Backs More Iraq Troops if Needed
WASHINGTON - If violence in Iraq gets worse, U.S. military commanders will get the troops they need to deal with it, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
Coalition forces fought on two fronts Tuesday, battling a Shiite-inspired uprising in southern Iraq and Sunni insurgents in the city of Fallujah in clashes that have killed dozens of American troops and at least 100 Iraqis since the weekend.
Commanders are studying ways they might increase troops in Iraq if violence should spread much more widely, defense officials said.
Among the options are:
_Troops already inside Iraq could be moved around.
_Troops eventually headed for Iraq, now training in nearby Kuwait, could be sent early.
_More troops could be sent from the United States — either reservists or active duty troops who have already served.
Officials said they also are talking to six more countries about the possibility of contributing forces. Such talks have continued throughout the campaign but have brought in only 24,000 international troops, compared with 135,000 Americans in Iraq.
"I'm fearful of sending more American troops who will be drawn from the guard and reserve forces once again," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. "That's when we're going to exacerbate what I believe is a looming retention and recruitment problem."
Nelson said, however, that American forces must remain committed.
Noting the Pentagon may have to send more troops, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said:
"The bottom line is that we have no good options. This is complicated, and it is unpredictable and very dangerous."
The 135,000 total of U.S. troops in Iraq is "an unusually high level," Rumsfeld said. American officials had expected the figure to go down to about 115,000 when a series of rotations of new troops into and older troops out of the country was complete, Rumsfeld said.
Some 200,000 Iraqis have been hired for a new Iraq army, as police, border security, guards at infrastructure and so on. But it will take months before most are sufficiently trained and equipped to handle the violence, Abizaid has said.
Rumsfeld said there is a possibility that NATO will help in Iraq. The alliance has a peacekeeping force of 6,500 in Afghanistan and is expanding its work there.
posted on April 7, 2004 06:47:38 AM new 40 dead as US bombs Fallujah mosque
US Marines pressing an offensive in Fallujah, west of Iraq capital Baghdad, have bombed a mosque in the centre of the town and killed up to 40 insurgents inside, a Marine officer said.
The attack came from a jet aircraft at a high angle to minimise the impact, the officer said.
"We wanted to kill the people inside," said Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne.
RAMADI, Iraq - Three days shy of the
one-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad,
intense combat spread to at least four more
cities in Iraq Tuesday, killing at least
13 U.S. Marines...
In the meantime...while all is going to hell, George and Condi will be prtending all is normal.
And then to Crawford for the rest of the week." George and Condi will pretend that all is normal while everything is going to hell.
posted on April 7, 2004 09:31:46 AM newI think you will find the kill ratio quite acceptable and if we continue to take it to them they will run out of people before we do.
Do you know what the kill ratio was in Vietnam ? It is estimated that for our 55,000 killed, there were close to 1,000,000 Vietnamese killed. A fantastic kill ratio at even 1/4 of that figure. But we could not change the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. No invader has ever been able to change hearts and minds with the military.
But there is no acceptable kill ratio when you husband, wife, son, daughter, is sent to be killed in a foreign land due to a lying president that wasn't even honestly elected.
Democracies can only successfully fight just wars.
posted on April 7, 2004 10:50:16 AM new
A silly analogy. Vietnam was a "political" war, not a military war. With targets off limits and allowing your enemy to be constantly re-supplied any idiot could have made a prediction about Vietnam. Given the N Vietnamese strung Johnson on for YEARS about the shape of the conference table, and all of a sudden saw the light when dams and power plants were destroyed and harbors mined, it would seem wars are best waged in military terms.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:01:44 AM new
I don't care about Vietnam, that was over 30 years ago.... This is 2004 we will win in Iraq... muck rakers and anti-americans are the ones keep those insurgents up in arms.... enjoy it...
Our technology is a major difference here...
The only reason I can see this being long and drawn out is they receive outside assistance... I would need HARD proof of that not suppositions or guesses...
posted on April 7, 2004 11:54:32 AM new
How do we "win" in Iraq ?
There were no WOMDs.
There were no terrorists.
Give us a definition of what it will mean to "win" in Iraq ?
Vietnam was a "political" war, not a military war.
Really ? Then how did all of those people die ? From speeches ? All wars in a democracy a "political" in the sense that the consent and values of that democracy must be couched in any prosecution of war.
Lying to invade a country will not stand in a democracy.
posted on April 7, 2004 09:35:49 PM new
The U.S. Military & those countries that fought with us, including Canada, never lost a Military engagement during the Vietnam War.
2,100,000 U.S. Military men and women served in Vietnam. 58,152 2.7 were killed. 153,303 wounded. 1 out of every 10 that served was killed or wounded.
So what lost the Vietnam war. 1. the draft polices. 2. Not using older National guard & reserves. 3. Peace protester who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. 4. last but not not least, the United State congress and John Kerry..
This war in Iraq is different, but the same dip sticks will loose this one if we are not careful. if you think 9-11 was bad start looking for a hole because you will be fighting it in your own home...
posted on April 7, 2004 09:57:45 PM new
What lost the war in Vietnam? We were wrong and had been lied to by our leaders both Republican and Democrat.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 7, 2004 10:19:08 PM new
The Vietnam war could not be won. But I am still waiting for your definition of "winning" in Iraq.
This war in Iraq is different, but the same dip sticks will loose this one if we are not careful. if you think 9-11 was bad start looking for a hole because you will be fighting it in your own home...
I am curious how you fit Iraq into the war on terror and the 9-11 attack. I do think 9-11 was bad, but how is it that you now think the Iraqis are coming to our homes if we remove ourselves from their country ?
Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. In fact bin Laden probably had Saddam on his hit list. Iraq had no WOMDs - it was a lie.
I think it is plausible that it is strengthening the terrorists by us being pinned down in Iraq. Just think what we could do by moving all those troops in Iraq to Afghanistan. We would probably have al Qaeda eradicated by now.
Bush screwed up. He invaded the wrong country based on a pack of lies. And now we have over 600 dead friends, neighbors, husbands, sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers.
Bush simply does not deserve to be in office for a second term. The first term is about as big a train wreck as America can stand.
We need to withdraw our troops at the earliest convienence and concentrate on the war on terror.
posted on April 14, 2004 04:50:22 PM new
I'm bumping this one up because I have a question that someone may be able to answer.
On March 15 I posted these figures and I'd copied them from the CNN page.
There have been 664 coalition deaths, 564 Americans, 59 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, one Estonian, 17 Italians, two Poles, 10 Spaniards, two Thai and three Ukrainian, in the war as of March 15, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. This list is updated regularly. There have been 3,190 U.S. troops wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon.
Now it is April 14 and these are the latest figures.
There have been 791 coalition deaths, 688 Americans, 59 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, one Estonian, 17 Italians, two Poles, one Salvadoran, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and four Ukrainians, in the war as of April 14, 2004. The list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. There have been 3,269 U.S. troops wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
If my math is correct, during the past month there have been 124 more American soldiers killed. But in that same time there have only been 79 injured, according to the Pentagon.
Can someone explain this to me. Does it mean that a soldier in Iraq will more likely be killed than injured?
posted on April 14, 2004 06:03:19 PM new
Kiara, that's a good question...hope someone has an answer. I've noticed that news reports of the number injured is usually absent. Generally, the number injured is 3 to 5 times greater than the number killed so that number from the Pentagon is unusually low. The Guardian reported today that in the last two weeks, 540 were injured.
From the Guardian..."More than 540 have been injured in the last two weeks - well above any monthly total since President George W Bush declared major combat over on 1 May 2003."
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
