3,000

I recall a few articles four years ago, in which Bush was said to expect no casualties in this war.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I recall a few articles four years ago, in which Bush was said to expect no casualties in this war.

Can you provide a link to even one article where Bush said there would be no casualties?
I dont think you can,because I dont think Bush ever said that.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I recall a few articles four years ago, in which Bush was said to expect no casualties in this war.

Can you provide a link to even one article where Bush said there would be no casualties?
I dont think you can,because I dont think Bush ever said that.

Not to mention that 3000 in a 4 year span isn't all that high a death rate. We lost 50,000 in 10 years of Vietnam and we last almost 3000 on D-Day. I would say that for what we are doing 3000 is a low #.

0 Replies

According to Robertson, Bush told him, " 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' "

This was denied by the White House.

Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes:
"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing,"

Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says

0 Replies

pat robertson, not the most credible person on the planet

but i believe there was a general feeling of "this is gonna be a cakewalk"

some shock and awe and when the tanks roll in they'll lay down their arms and welcome us

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

pat robertson, not the most credible person on the planet

but i believe there was a general feeling of "this is gonna be a cakewalk"

some shock and awe and when the tanks roll in they'll lay down their arms and welcome us

For the most part that is what happened. There was very little loss of US soldiers when the war started. It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops.

0 Replies

All that proves is that they did about zero planning regarding what needed the most consideration - what was going to happen after the foregone result of rolling over a feeble resisting army.

0 Replies

"...There was very little loss of US soldiers when the war started. It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops. ..."

wonder what's going on now ?
is the solution to lower the death toll to start "combat operations" again ?
if , indeed , that is the solution , one has to wonder who let thngs slide for the last three years or so ?
hbg

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops.

Yes, from today's WaPo

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

"...There was very little loss of US soldiers when the war started. It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops. ..."

wonder what's going on now ?
is the solution to lower the death toll to start "combat operations" again ?
if , indeed , that is the solution , one has to wonder who let thngs slide for the last three years or so ?
hbg

I can tell you that the war turned to political. They stopped letting the soldiers do their jobs. War turned PC. When we had al Sader holed up in the mosque and didn't bomb the heck out of it that was the turning point for me in this war. The same thing happened in Vietnam when politicans started running the war and not the warriors.

When they are shooting at you from a mosque and you aren't allowed to shoot back then something is wrong. We showed we weren't going to let our soldier fight the war, we showed we were going to handle these people with kid gloves. We showed a weakness and the terrorists and rebels have taken advantage of that.

0 Replies

a/c to sfgate.com it is the "top" american generals who are asking for a "political and economic solution" to the war in iraq .
it seems that the generals realize that a civil war cannot be won in a conventional way . if citizens have no hope of ever seeing peace , they have little to loose by keeping up the mayhem or leaving the country .
as has been pointed out in numeous interviews with iraqis , those that can afford to leave to syria , jordan and other places are leaving in droves - don't know the exact number , but a/t reports several 100,000 iraqis have already left and the pace is accelarating .
i doubt that is the solution the u.s. government is looking for .
hbg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"More troops: more success, or more failure?
President Bush, working to recraft his strategy in Iraq, said Tuesday that he plans to increase the size of the U.S. military so it can fight a long-term war against terrorism.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces.

While it was not clear from the interview (full transcript) what this means to the war in Iraq, the Post notes:

Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops [to Iraq] would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the already stretched Army and Marines Corps even thinner once the surge ended.

They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress. "

source :
...GENERALS CALL FOR POLITICAL SOLUTION...

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

hamburger wrote:
"...There was very little loss of US soldiers when the war started. It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops. ..."

wonder what's going on now ?
is the solution to lower the death toll to start "combat operations" again ?
if , indeed , that is the solution , one has to wonder who let thngs slide for the last three years or so ?
hbg

I can tell you that the war turned to political. They stopped letting the soldiers do their jobs. War turned PC. When we had al Sader holed up in the mosque and didn't bomb the heck out of it that was the turning point for me in this war. The same thing happened in Vietnam when politicans started running the war and not the warriors.

When they are shooting at you from a mosque and you aren't allowed to shoot back then something is wrong. We showed we weren't going to let our soldier fight the war, we showed we were going to handle these people with kid gloves. We showed a weakness and the terrorists and rebels have taken advantage of that.

Bush & Co. are the politicians in charge of this war.

And last I heard, rules of engagement all returning fire even into a mosque.

0 Replies

baldimo wrote :
"War turned PC. "

so i wonder , do you hold your president responsible for being "politically correct" - would you rather have him be "politically incorrect" ?
still wondering Question

hbg

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
hamburger wrote:
"...There was very little loss of US soldiers when the war started. It wasn't till after major combat operations stopped that we started loosing most of the troops. ..."

wonder what's going on now ?
is the solution to lower the death toll to start "combat operations" again ?
if , indeed , that is the solution , one has to wonder who let thngs slide for the last three years or so ?
hbg

I can tell you that the war turned to political. They stopped letting the soldiers do their jobs. War turned PC. When we had al Sader holed up in the mosque and didn't bomb the heck out of it that was the turning point for me in this war. The same thing happened in Vietnam when politicans started running the war and not the warriors.

When they are shooting at you from a mosque and you aren't allowed to shoot back then something is wrong. We showed we weren't going to let our soldier fight the war, we showed we were going to handle these people with kid gloves. We showed a weakness and the terrorists and rebels have taken advantage of that.

Bush & Co. are the politicians in charge of this war.

And last I heard, rules of engagement all returning fire even into a mosque.

As I said before, if that were the case, then we would have bombed the heck out of that mosque that al Sader was holed up in. Instead we didn't shoot back and we talked with him and even gave him a seat in the govt.

You are right, that is what the ROE say, but that isn't what happens as noted above.

hamburger wrote:

baldimo wrote :
"War turned PC. "

so i wonder , do you hold your president responsible for being "politically correct" - would you rather have him be "politically incorrect" ?
still wondering
hbg

Yes I hold him to that as well as the rest of the govt and the media. They are all complacent in this PCness of war.

When it comes to fighting a war, I would like to see the politicans keep their noses out of it and let the generals and soldiers do what they were trained to do.

0 Replies

Any evidence that the deal with Sadr was politically ordered? Perhaps the military commanders are smart enough not to create more high-profile martyrs.

0 Replies

And I consider civilian control of the military to be an absolute necessity. If you don't like what said civilians are doing, then elect different civilians.

0 Replies

Only 3000? Nothing, really. Who gives a **** about three thousand lives taken from the troops by a war that had no legitemacy to begin with? Drop in the bucket, when we got lots more, right?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Only 3000? Nothing, really. Who gives a **** about three thousand lives taken from the troops by a war that had no legitemacy to begin with? Drop in the bucket, when we got lots more, right?

Nice twist. Of course 3000 troops loosing their lives is sad but when you look at what they are doing and how long we have been there, it isn't very much. You forget being a soldier I take this more personaly then you do, but I also understand that this was indeed the right thing to do, thats why I joined.

0 Replies

I merely paraphrased what certain posters here seem to think. Butchery in the interest of stupidity seems to be okay with you guys.

0 Replies

3,000

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know