 |
|
Evil Knevil
|
 |
St Andrews, Scotland.
Dec 1999 time: 05:29
|
|
I think the number of (confirmed) dead soldiers is over 9,000, as my previous signature stated.
The civilian dead is about 3000-4000. This climbs into the tens of thousands if you consider that you ****ing morons messed up the hospitals, laura norder and electricity.
Edit - next time you bypass the censor, you'll get a week off.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 13-07-2003 at 04:45
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
And why wouldn't we?
|
Assuming the Iraqis dont turn up the heat such that the US will leave (and good luck to them), the US will stay for influence, oil, and its self-admitted desire to garrison an Arab state (what it said about saudi arabia after Gulf War I).
Even if the US's only desire is the creation of a viable (most likely puppet but hey) state, a proposition I seriously doubt, then it would take a number of years as stabilisation, not to mention tech, infrastructure and bureaucratic support, of course, someone would need to fill the power vacuum until the forces of a new Iraqi state can take over. If that doesnt happen, then it is most likely that Iraq would be administered by other Arabs, the UN (the best option of all imo), or rival warlords until the UN or Saudi intervenes.
quote:
The oil is for the Iraqi people, you know!
|
Who told you that? Bush?? 
quote:
Do you want a quagmire with lots of dead US soldiers?
|
Nope, but I dont want a sovereign nation under foreign occupation. If the Iraqis dont want them, and that is the way it is looking (even the pro US voices are giving them 18-24 months before they turn anti), and the USA doesnt leave on their request (which should be the peoples perogative), then they can expect to be shot at, blown up, or murdered. While I dont particularly like that, I understand that, and they have more justification in kicking out foreign troops than the US has in staying (or even being there).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS
Tommy Franks said the other day that the price for the US f*cking up their handling of Iraq will be a US military presence of 2-4 years at a cost of $3.9bn a month...
|
That's nice. I read the transcript and unfortunately for you, Franks didn't say that. But then again, what's reality or honesty when you can gently paraphrase and spin what someone says to get the result you'd like to work with? 
quote:
Now, assuming he is not talking out of his arse - which is a major assumption considering what a useless waste of space he has been so far - you're looking at over a thousand dead soldiers on the current bleed rate of one US soldier a day...
|
(a) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over Afghanistan while you whiners were talking out your arses about the Soviets, Vietnam, and how Afghanistan was going to swallow the US whole.
(b) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over main resistance in Iraq in a month, while the leftist whiners were talking months to years of heavy fighting and half a million civilian dead.
So looks like Franks isn't the useless waste of space - the leftist whiners seem do be.
The current "bleed rate" and the rate of funds being spent will both go down, not up, with transition to an Iraqi provisional government and Iraqi primary security. Franks addressed nothing more than an ongoing role for US occupying forces, not the extent or monthly cost of that role, let alone the suggestion that US losses, expenditures and activities would be conveniently static.
But don't let little details like reality and actual quotes get in the way.
quote:
Personally I predict it is going to get worse as the attacks have become far more sophisticated and organised lately, so I'm thinking that 1,000+ dead US soldiers might even be a conservative estimate.
|
There has been little to no increase in either the sophistication or success level of those attacks that have been successful. In fact, the more the Iraqis try to coordinate and organize, the more screwed they are - where they (and all guerilla forces) are most easily successful is in relatively spontaneous, opportunistic attacks with no planning or coordination, by individuals to two-three man teams.
quote:
Not bad considering Saddam didn't even seem to have any WMD in the first place or that as Rummy has said they may even have been looted by the very fanatics that weren't supposed to get them in the first place! Not to mention the fact that Iraq seems to be about to lurch from a secular state into a fundamental one, or that Iraq's nuclear scientists seem to have fled to Iran who, wait for it, has an even more advanced nuclear programme than the Iraqis...
|
Nice speculation.
quote:
I feel an Oliver Hardy quote coming on...
Discuss... |
This troll isn't at the level of Laurel and Hardy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|