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.

 

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq for November Tops 100

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq for November Tops 100


Got this from Truthout. This makes November the second deadliest month so far.

"Washington - Three Marines who were wounded in action during the Fallujah offensive later died at American hospitals in Germany and the United States, the Pentagon said Monday, raising the U.S. military death toll in Iraq for November to at least 101...."


www.truthout.org...

Get your combat boots shined up comrades, we will all be there soon enough...




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
ummm November isn't over yet....




I hate to see anyone die, but it's a war and people on both sides are going to die.

What's the point of reporting the numbers ?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The US is fixated with the numbers. I am suprised Ratio's havent been published yet...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The US is fixated with the numbers. I am suprised Ratio's havent been published yet...


I'm sure the ratios are out there already.... just got to find them and I don't want to waste the time doing it.

There's poker to play...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Fixated on numbers? Hardly.
You want a "real" fixation on numbers, direct your attention to Vietnam and the 'strategy of attrition.'




seekerof



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I know it's immoral and i'm sorry,

but our "commander in chief" probably looks at the casualties report for the war in Iraq, figures all is well with the death toll since its barely a scratch in coalition forces fighting in Iraq.

Remember, only a commander in chief who has never served a day in battle could carry this type of mentality.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Vietnams Attrition

"In Vietnam, we did none of this. We did not capture territory, or bomb infrastructure to any great degree due to the politics of the war. In stead, we engaged in a strategy of attrition. Our troops would search out and destroy the enemy forces, hence the term "search and destroy". The media bastardized the term to mean "search" villages and "destroy" them. This was incorrect. Yes villages were burned but it was usually in retaliation for the local population supporting the insurgents. They were then moved to government relocation camps. This was an attempt to deny the enemy support and food. Due to world wide opinion, we only bombed select targets such as rail road bridges from N. Vietnam to China that were being used to bring in supplies. Only late in the war did we invade Cambodia and Laos which were sancturaries for the enemy, and were in fact pretty much controlled by them. We never invaded N. Vietnam.

Early in the war it was pretty much a guerrilla war, where small units of enemy troops would attack only when they had numerical superiority and suprise on their side. The Tet offensive ended this as most of the irregular forces were destroyed and it became a conventional war with the Army of N. Vietnam invading the South. This stage of the war was regular army units against regular army units. I mentioned a strategy of attrition above, this means we were trying to kill them faster than they killed us so that they would eventually give up. We did that, the final casualty figures were 55,0000 american dead to probably 1,000,000+ enemy soldiers. Our problem was the american people and the government lost their will to continue the fight.

In a nut shell the difference is the persisting strategy and the strategy of attrition. In WII large formations were deployed and captured territory. In Vietnam, small battalion sized units were deployed to find, fix and destroy the enemy. Small patrols or company sized units would serve as bait to draw the enemy formations out, then air mobile troops and air power would be sent in and used to destroy them, but we were not interested in capturing land.

In WII the enemy only wanted to capture and defend territory. In Vietnam, the enemy used hit and run tactics I mentioned above, attacking only when they had local numerical superiority and suprise, then they would melt away to do it again later. These tactics were devised and perfected by Mao Tse Tung and adopted by many communist insurgencies throughout the world."

Source:
experts.about.com...




top topics



 
0

log in

join