Skip to comments.
Why Is No One Talking About Casualties?
Arianna Huffington ^
| 7 October 2002
Posted on 10/07/2002 11:28:59 AM PDT by Asmodeus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-139 next last
1
posted on
10/07/2002 11:28:59 AM PDT
by
Asmodeus
To: Asmodeus
Arianna Huffington? Why is anyone talking about what she has to say?
2
posted on
10/07/2002 11:31:21 AM PDT
by
Plutarch
To: Asmodeus
Huffington should stick to what she does best -- blowing old millionaires -- and leave the war strategy to Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney.
To: Asmodeus
Same reason they didn't predict when WW2 or WW1 or when any war will end.
4
posted on
10/07/2002 11:32:28 AM PDT
by
Monty22
To: Asmodeus
Hundreds tops. Iraq doesn't have much of a military left. It has a quasi-police-military that can keep the population down on the oases but couldn't stand up to a trainded Western Army.
To: Asmodeus
Why Is No One Talking About Casualties? 3000 casualties on September 11, 2001, Arianna. That's all we've been talking about since. That's why we're at war. Get a clue, sweetie.
To: Plutarch
Yea, what's up? This is the Free Republic! We will not tollerate questioning Republican administrations!
To: Asmodeus
If Rumsfeld and the Pentagon planners are actually thinking of taking Baghdad in a MOUT style campaign, then expect casualties big-time. Even in the best training Marine units, we saw simulated casualties of no less than 25% of an invading force.
We are fools if we attack Saddam at his strong point (Baghdad) with simple ground forces. Much better to lay seige - or even better attack his weak points and undermine his will to fight.
A MOUT campaign accomplishes little and risks much. To hear generals talk about it in this article should be a warning flag to anyone.
8
posted on
10/07/2002 11:34:24 AM PDT
by
fogarty
To: Asmodeus
Somebody please take this turncoat bitch out back and beat her with a blunt object repeatedly and vigorously.
Please!
To: The Great Satan
Except, except...her millionaire turned out to be gay! Or, after marriage to Arianna, he turned gay. Either way, I don't think that is her particular talent.
10
posted on
10/07/2002 11:35:33 AM PDT
by
3AngelaD
To: The FRugitive
Yea, what's up? This is the Free Republic! We will not tollerate questioning Republican administrations! Nonsense. Not all questions are good questions.
11
posted on
10/07/2002 11:37:19 AM PDT
by
mlo
To: Larry Lucido
3000 casualties on September 11, 2001, Arianna. I don't think that's why we're going to war with Iraq.
Everyond stand up and repeat after me...
OH ...EYE... EL!!! It's all about OH... EYE... EL!!!
To: The FRugitive
LOL... they're as rabid as the Klintonoids were, despite all their protestations...
To: fogarty
"If Rumsfeld and the Pentagon planners are actually thinking of taking Baghdad in a MOUT style campaign, then expect casualties big-time. Even in the best training Marine units, we saw simulated casualties of no less than 25% of an invading force."
Perhaps the whole country will "surrender" or call themselves the equivalent of open cities. Perhaps Hussein-dependent elements will hole up in Tikrit, and that's where an urban battle may occur.
Just my guess.
14
posted on
10/07/2002 11:39:00 AM PDT
by
Shermy
To: Asmodeus
In war there are casualties. We are either prepared to accept that or we never fight. If we never fight we might as well surender now.
15
posted on
10/07/2002 11:39:46 AM PDT
by
mlo
To: Asmodeus
The reason is that nobody knows how we're going to fight this one, and anticipated casualty lists sort of depend on that.
In the Gulf War, BTW, we lost 147 killed and 457 wounded. Estimates prior to that were in the tens of thousands. I'd go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason nobody's talking about the estimates is that they're not particularly accurate.
To: 3AngelaD
Except, except...her millionaire turned out to be gay! Or, after marriage to Arianna, he turned gay.Maybe she wasn't very good.
To: DoctorMichael
Anyone catch the History channel last night and their speical on the Gulf war? Mr. Mudd pointed out that at the end of the war we lost more men in peace time due to driving/accidents than we did the Desert Storm.
To: The FRugitive
This is the Free Republic! We will not tollerate questioning Republican administrations! No one is stopping you from "tollerating" whatever you want. But since this is Free Republic, writers may expect to have their views come under scrutiny. Hers don't stand up, IMO. Sorry if those who disagree with you hurt your feelings.
To: DAnconia55
LOL... they're as rabid as the Klintonoids were Come on, Francisco, you know as well as I do that Ragnar would have already taken out Saddam, with or without UN approval.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-139 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson