It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you think we utilized the full potential of our military in Iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
To echo the sentiment of some of the other posts, There's absolutely no way we used everything we have. We could have barraged the country with nukes and very large conventional explosives, never sent in a single soldier, and completely obliterated the place. But, as others have said, the innocent life lost would be intolerable. It's a bit like killing cancer. Sure we could chemotherapy a tumor to death and simotaneously kill the patient. But then what's the point. The idea behind the invasion was to remove the government, while preserving the populace. You just can't do that by throwing everything you have at and flattening the people your'e trying to help.




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
Don't spout rhetoric about how low the casualty rates were going into Iraq when the enemy was hardly worthy.

God damnit! I am hardly 'spouting rhetoric'. The Iraq War was a war. It was a war in whcih the US was amazingly succesful. It was a war and insurgency where the US combat fatalities have been extremely low. What exactly is the problem here? Yes the iraqi army was incompetent, yes the insurgency is very incapable, for christ sakes, that what low combat fatalies are all about! If they were good at what they were doing, then, logically, there'd have to be high US combat fatalities. They're bad at it, the US and coalition are good at it, and thats a good thing. It doesn't mean that the people that died should be forgotten, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more of an effort to be even better than the enemy, and it doesn't mean that the war was 'easy' for the people actually invovled in fighting it.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Ngydan just admit you are content with 10,000 wounded and 1,500 KIA. You look at this as a victory. You dont see any problem with it.

The very first thing you said in this thread was that we did a good job because of the fairly low casualty count compared to Vietnam or WWI or WW2. Then try to spin it around at every rebuttal.

You remind me of a used car salesman. Initially they tell you what they really want, then if it doesnt satisfy they give you a different view.

You remind me of some cronie somewhere overseeing the death of his conscripts to protect his power. As long as you can keep the conscripts coming and your power intact I guess you could care less huh. Long as it suits your goal and your alive.

I think you would have a different reality as a ground soldier.

This thread was about thinking we dont do as good as we could.
We lost people. We lost people today to roadside bombs, AGAIN.

But I guess it isnt a big deal and we dont really need to adapt because our casualty count still has awhile to go before we reach Vietnam numbers.




[edit on 5-2-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Ngydan just admit you are content with 10,000 wounded and 1,500 KIA. You look at this as a victory. You dont see any problem with it.

Know what? Go # yourself.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Ritual
10,000+ wounded in action.
1,500 Killed in Action.

That is 1/10th of our forces commited to Iraq.

I am not seeing things right with this. I cant accept that my country fought this war with its fullest potential.

You do realize that the Iraq war has one of, if not the, lowest combat fatality rates of all US wars right?


Enough said.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join