It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A little perspective here....

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:11 PM
For those who are running around shouting, "The sky is falling!" and believe that we are, yeah, get this...LOSING this's a little perspective.

Coalition Military Casualties (Deaths, not including wounded) are currently at 61. This includes deaths by accidents, fratricide, etc.

Confirmed Coalition POWs currently number 7.

Iraqi Military Casualties (Killed in action) are currently estimated in the thousands (adding up totals from the battles, and not even factoring in the bombings, which, when factored in, approach the tens of thousands)

Confirmed Iraqi POWs number around 4000, as of today.

Have there been setbacks? Sure, but it's hardly the doom and gloom that people seem to think. The biggest setback isn't even due to the enemy, but to nature. (i.e. the sandstorms) From the get-go, our tactics were announced as "fluid", and we've had to take a more "occupational" role on the way to Baghdad, vs. a "liberational" role, due to the enemy's disregard for their civilian casualties. Just a note, that as you see each and every little setback on the news, keep in mind it's only a small part of the big picture here.

P.S.-Last time I posted numbers, I was asked for sources (and I then provided them). These numbers are available at any of the various news sites, outlets, tv stations, etc. If absolutely necessary, I'd be happy to start posting the links, but as we've been bombarded with them for days, I really didn't think it necessary for such an educated bunch...Thanks!

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:23 PM
I'm not sure I've seen many people declaring outright that the war will be lost, I think it's more about how much we will have to lose to win it.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:26 PM
Good post!

I agree 100%

The reports coming out SEEM TO ME AND ONLY ME, to be anti-war propaganda garbage.

Think of it as a football game:

USA-4000 *Thats being very generous

So who's winning?
I don't need to answer, do I?

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:32 PM
I do not believe that "winning" a war, is about who kills more people... That was not my intention... My intention was solely to put things in perspective, for those getting caught up in this strange depressing fog coming from the media....

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
I do not believe that "winning" a war, is about who kills more people

I agree to an extent, winning a war is about killing the enemy; the more of the enemy you kill, the better your chance of winning the war.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:47 PM
Today I heard the US Military spokesman describe the lightly armed irregular Iraqi forces as terrorists. These guys with little more than AK47 and RPGs are defending their homeland against the most technologically advanced and heavily armed force ever formed. The US Generals are complaining that these people arent fighting how they want them toin nice recognizable groups that can be bombed from afar.

During the US War of Independence the British generals complained bitterly about the devious cowardly Americans who refused to fight following the conventions of war of the time. These American terrorists refused to line up and face the well equipped and trained British Empire Army and allow themselves to be wiped out.

I think things could get pretty grim for all concerned before Bhaggad falls. I also wonder how the current coalition forces are going to be treated by the Iraqi people if they try and administer the peace? There are going to be plenty of people who be less then grateful for having the hell liberated out of them.

I think a limited use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi forces could be a god send to the US. It would immediately bring the UN on board. A blue helmet force could administer the peace while the US and Brits get the hell out of dodge and avoid endless years of car bombs etc.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:00 PM
The same could be said about Vietnam as well.

However, you're overlooking one key difference. Unlike both of those wars, here...the Government is committed to winning. Britain lacked this commitment in the Revolutionary War...the US did likewise in Vietnam. This time, Victory will be had... We prefer to play "nice", but we will only do so to a point, until the gloves need to come off.

I share your concern for the post-war Iraq conditions though, and I do hope that chemical weapons are found, to start justifying the war in the world's eyes. For now though, we've got to secure the country before we can start "meaningful" inspections...(i.e. you can't hide and move stuff around while you're in a POW camp...

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:20 PM
Ohhh I don't think for a second the US is going to do anything but "win" no matter what the price. My point was more to do with the hypocrisy of the spokesman than the final outcome.

However the more I think about it, the more I think the US needs the UN like never before. People may be willing to put up with 500 / 1000 casualties to topple Hussein over the next 3-4 weeks. But a small but constant flow for years while the peace is administered...I'm not so sure.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 07:44 PM
May I begin by stating that Im 100% pro-American and in favour of the current war to remove Sadman Insane from power. And, your statically claimed numbers seem about correct, given the constant flux.

However, Im concerned that anyone may be seduced into thinking that America is all invincible and beyond being overcome by opposing forces. American capabilities may be stretched beyond the point of effectiveness worldwide, if faced with conflicts in Asia & the Middle East simultaneously.

I have no doubt that America has the resources and technology to defeat the Iraqi forces in the long run. I have no doubt that America will be victorious against that tyrannical regime. But looking globally, theres North Korea, China, Russia, Syria and a load of other minor players who also hate & resent America, and would be willing to bring about her downfall. Trying to maintain global dominance may become more than America could handle eventually.

All the past great civilizations and world powers were eventually defeated at some point. Ancient Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Napoleon & Hitler were all faced with the dilemma of maintaining their domination across continents and against people who hated their presence and power. In comparison, modern America could be seen as a parallel with Rome, as Rome was the greatest world power that had ever been seen until then. What happened to Rome? Attila and his Hun hordes invaded savagely and decimated Roman military domination in that day they might have said, Whos Attila and what can his hordes do against the might of Rome?

What Im hoping to convey is that America, and Americans should be wary of being lulled into a false sense of grandiosity and being puffed up beyond realisism because of bunk generated by Washington spin doctors, and realise that we are only frail humans also. Were not transformers who can metamorphosize at will and become an ever greater being full of power and wrath. A false sense of self-worth and power is intoxicating and that drink could easily lull America to its doom.

I love my country with all my heart and would willingly fight again, to defend its liberty. But I also realise that we are just one country and are limited because as humans we are all limited, in what we can realistically accomplish. I hope that the coalition forces are victorious, but I am cautious about how easy that victory will be gained. Example below from a recent CBS news report:

Call Goes Out For U.S. Reinforcements

"CBS News has learned of the first U.S. request for reinforcements to help protect supply lines under attack from Saddam's toughest fighters. Separately, a thousand American paratroopers landed in northern Iraq and seized an airfield.

The commander of American ground forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, has asked the Pentagon to fly in part of an armoured cavalry regiment from the states, about 700 soldiers, to help protect the supply lines in southern Iraq which have come under unexpectedly fierce attack from Saddam's so-called Fedayeen fighters."

I would suggest that its wisest not to count chickens before theyve hatched and the coalition may need to drop the kid gloves and begin fighting and worry less about politicians and world opinion. This is a war and the ultimate outcome must be victory, not spin doctor propaganda.

I hope all here will understand and appreciate my concern and belief that war is not a game, victory comes at a cost and as Americans we must be willing to pay the price for our liberties and ultimate victory.

All the Best Always,

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 08:01 PM
However, there is a big difference between maintaining an empire (i.e. the Romans, etc.) and maintaining "influence". We've already been doing that world-wide for half a century, we'll simply be extending the area of influence a bit...

new topics

top topics


log in