So it looks like Daschle finally made up his mind

[Emos]

Yes, over 1000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, over 10 times as many as during the Gulf War. Those numbers were as of a month ago, its probably pretty much the same now
News to me...do you have a reputable source to support this allegation?

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Emos
Yes, over 1000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, over 10 times as many as during the Gulf War. Those numbers were as of a month ago, its probably pretty much the same now
News to me...do you have a reputable source to support this allegation?

did you read his other statements? He has no sources. His main source is that puddle of mush inside of his head.

 

[spaceman]

over 1000 troops?
cite the source please.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Yes, over 1000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, over 10 times as many as during the Gulf War. Those numbers were as of a month ago, its probably pretty much the same now.

Would you please cite a credible source for this fact that noone else has ever seen or heard?

Are there any credible sources that indicate the number of american deaths in Afghanistan?? The pentagon is imposing severe restrictions on the media so that possible realities like 1000 servicemen dead are not exposed. They (the pentagon) want to convey their rosy perception of the war to the public so that no widespread opposition to the war starts.

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Yes, over 1000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, over 10 times as many as during the Gulf War. Those numbers were as of a month ago, its probably pretty much the same now.

Would you please cite a credible source for this fact that noone else has ever seen or heard?

Are there any credible sources that indicate the number of american deaths in Afghanistan?? The pentagon is imposing severe restrictions on the media so that possible realities like 1000 servicemen dead are not exposed. They (the pentagon) want to convey their rosy perception of the war to the public so that no widespread opposition to the war starts.

but these soldiers have families.you would think there would be someone out there blowing the horn if this were truley the case.
as of now i take it as nothing but hogwash from Jimi Hendrix.

 

[EvenHand]

Well, Oh Mighty Hero of Pelinor. Hitler was a very different case, having thousands and thousands of highly mobile troops, a well-developed industrial base, and a very advanced airforce. This is much more like Viet Nam. Ask yourself this question, we never invaded and took out Oscar Schmedlap and no one is complaining about that. Saddam is more like Oscar Schmedlap than like Hitler.

As for American casualties in Afghanistan, I can't find that the U.S. has released them in an official sense. They have been officially released for the Gulf War. 43 dead and that was a walkover. http://web1.whs.osd.mil/MMID/CASUALTY/CASTOP.HTM If Iraq decides to fight, this won't be a walkover. At least the body bags will be coming in to an East Coast base, not Travis. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are not officially kept. Responsible organizations such as Physicians without Borders estimate approximately 3,500 civilian casualties.

And ask yourself how we're going in reconstructing Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a toy model compared to Iraq and we can't do it in Afghanistan.

 

[ToBeMe]

Yes, over 1000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, over 10 times as many as during the Gulf War. Those numbers were as of a month ago, its probably pretty much the same now.

Well................waiting for a credible source to prove this point..................................

 

[HendrixFan]

Well, I couldnt find the link after a quick google search. Maybe it will turn up. I dont think a "credible" source satisfactory to many would be found. Only the Bush Administration would be "credible" in many people's mind, and they are tight lipped about it.

Either way, my point was that the invasion of Iraq will have heavy American casualties because of the nature of the excercise. Bush Sr said as much, many former and current generals have said as much. Obviously the current Administration has done nothing to prepare people for this, if the responses here are to be considered as normal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4421368,00.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/20/MN92230.DTL

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Party officials have chosen the Whitney Houston song I Will Always Love You as the campaign theme tune. The song accompanies the dawn-to-dusk election broadcasts on the three state-controlled television stations, which feature almost continuous footage of Saddam.

Holy crap! Until now I thought the stories of Hussein inflicting evil on his own people were unsubstantiated and baseless. That's just inhumane!

 

[JellyBaby]

On Afghanistan casualties I heard so far it's a few thousand dead civilians, a few dozen dead American soliders and several hundred wounded American soldiers. Al Queda's leaders apparently escaped including UBL, according to analysis of those recent audio tapes.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Before Desert Storm, even some high ranking officials in our military expected tens of thousands of dead GI's. This is proven by all the body bags they bought before the assault began. Relatively few of our servicemen/women were killed. Perhaps it was all a ruse to fake out the Iraqi military.

Nobody knows what our military plans are for attacking Iraq this time. All the naysayers are shedding premature tears over the tens of thousands of American military personnel who are going to be killed in house to house fighting against an Iraqui military that just isn't going to give up until the last man has bit a bullet. I doubt the Iraqui military is going to hunker down and engage in an urban war that they know they are going to lose anyway. The Iraqui military is not well trained nor are they well motivated.

Any attack the U.S. launches against Iraq will be preceeded by a minimum of 2-3 months of strategic bombing which will obliterate what is left of their command and control network. Their people will not know where our people are. Their people will not know where their people are. There will be no communications between any but the most local units. These people are not going to fight to the death for no reason.

As to rebuilding the Iraqui government. It will be somewhat easier than developing a government structure in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the people have been living in anarchy for ? years. The country has been controlled by warlords and most recently by the Taliban for hundreds? of years. It has no infrastructure, no natural resources and no manufacturing base. Iraq, on the other hand, has a highly developed government, albeit a dictatorship. It has natural resources, an infrastructure and a manufacturing base that is at least developed enough to produce WMD's.

There is no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Before Desert Storm, even some high ranking officials in our military expected tens of thousands of dead GI's. This is proven by all the body bags they bought before the assault began. Relatively few of our servicemen/women were killed. Perhaps it was all a ruse to fake out the Iraqi military. Nobody knows what our military plans are for attacking Iraq this time. All the naysayers are shedding premature tears over the tens of thousands of American military personnel who are going to be killed in house to house fighting against an Iraqui military that just isn't going to give up until the last man has bit a bullet. I doubt the Iraqui military is going to hunker down and engage in an urban war that they know they are going to lose anyway. The Iraqui military is not well trained nor are they well motivated. Any attack the U.S. launches against Iraq will be preceeded by a minimum of 2-3 months of strategic bombing which will obliterate what is left of their command and control network. Their people will not know where our people are. Their people will not know where their people are. There will be no communications between any but the most local units. These people are not going to fight to the death for no reason. As to rebuilding the Iraqui government. It will be somewhat easier than developing a government structure in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the people have been living in anarchy for ? years. The country has been controlled by warlords and most recently by the Taliban for hundreds? of years. It has no infrastructure, no natural resources and no manufacturing base. Iraq, on the other hand, has a highly developed government, albeit a dictatorship. It has natural resources, an infrastructure and a manufacturing base that is at least developed enough to produce WMD's. There is no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq.

You assume it will be all military in Baghdad. Tell me, as a civilian, if you could get your hands on a gun, what would you do if invading enemy soldiers started coming? You could turn tail and run. Or surrender. Or fight. Many will choose the third option. As far as fighting a battle they know they will lose, consider we "knew" we would be overwhelmed by the British. Worked well for them didnt it. Eventually, Iraq will fall. We are simply too powerful and will completely crush the Iraqi people if that is what it takes.

 

[HappyPuppy]

You assume it will be all military in Baghdad. Tell me, as a civilian, if you could get your hands on a gun, what would you do if invading enemy soldiers started coming? You could turn tail and run. Or surrender. Or fight. Many will choose the third option. As far as fighting a battle they know they will lose, consider we "knew" we would be overwhelmed by the British. Worked well for them didnt it. Eventually, Iraq will fall. We are simply too powerful and will completely crush the Iraqi people if that is what it takes

I disagree about the civilians picking up guns and fighting. I don't even believe that their military will resist for very long, just long enough to make it look good.

 

[Turin39789]

dark days

 

[JellyBaby]

HappyPuppy, the excellence of our military combined with an overestimation of Iraq's lead to the incredibly and thankfully low casuality rate in the Gulf War.

No one really knows how long an Iraqi invasion would last but the resulting occupution will be indefinite (or until the oil is gone).

The French (among others) have sold components to Iraq with which Saddum has partially rebuilt Iraq's C&C and defense networks. The continual pummeling of Iraq's defenses by the U.S. over the last decade has made it quite easy to acheive dominance in a minimum amount of time.

From what I read Iraq's ground forces are not very capable. They do have quite a few outdated tanks and some several hundred modern tanks but not all are operational and they don't have the means to maintain them properly.

As you say, the blood and guts question would be in urban Baghdad, I think. That's where Iraq's Elite Republican Guard and newer Elite Elite Republican Guard will either put up a grand fight or run white flags or somewhere in between.

On Afghanistan, I wouldn't be so certain all is hunky-dorey over there. From what little information is coming out it seems the warlords are back, the drug trade is re-established and the newly appointed democratic leader is fearful of assassination attempts by his own guards. It looks like a mess.

 

[Ornery]

Any of you remember the hand wringing and doomsayers about what would happen if we invaded Afghanistan? We were reminded over and over about how the Soviets struggled for years, got ambushed... yadda yadda. Should I see if I can track down some links? OK, here's a couple!

Edit: Oops sorry, Happy Puppy beat me to it 20 minutes ago!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You assume it will be all military in Baghdad. Tell me, as a civilian, if you could get your hands on a gun, what would you do if invading enemy soldiers started coming? You could turn tail and run. Or surrender. Or fight. Many will choose the third option. As far as fighting a battle they know they will lose, consider we "knew" we would be overwhelmed by the British. Worked well for them didnt it. Eventually, Iraq will fall. We are simply too powerful and will completely crush the Iraqi people if that is what it takes I disagree about the civilians picking up guns and fighting. I don't even believe that their military will resist for very long, just long enough to make it look good.

You may be right, but as for me, if you were a Chinese soldier invading my home to liberate me, I would shoot you.

 

[HappyPuppy]

JellyBaby. I have no illusions about the U.S. ever subduing or changing Afghanistan. It is a tribal country that will never, in our lifetimes, recognize a central government. Our primary purpose there was to disrupt Al Qaeda. We have done that. There may have been a pie in the sky secondary purpose of setting up a centralized government, which won't happen, so that we, the "West", could build an oil pipeline across the country. I don't believe that will ever happen, either.

As to just how hard and long the Elite Republican Guard will fight only time will tell. I have no documentation to back up my assertion, but I believe they will collapse fairly quickly. I think their command staff will pull them back because they will not want to die an ignominious death without reason. The Iraqui generals who throw in the towel will not be prosecuted for war crimes and will live long luxurious lives with the money they have squirreled away.

That's my take on the situation.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You assume it will be all military in Baghdad. Tell me, as a civilian, if you could get your hands on a gun, what would you do if invading enemy soldiers started coming? You could turn tail and run. Or surrender. Or fight. Many will choose the third option. As far as fighting a battle they know they will lose, consider we "knew" we would be overwhelmed by the British. Worked well for them didnt it. Eventually, Iraq will fall. We are simply too powerful and will completely crush the Iraqi people if that is what it takes I disagree about the civilians picking up guns and fighting. I don't even believe that their military will resist for very long, just long enough to make it look good.

You may be right, but as for me, if you were a Chinese soldier invading my home to liberate me, I would shoot you.

You weren't there in '91 were you? I know it has been quite some time, but, I do not think that much will have changed in regard to the people of Iraq, or its military. What I think you are missing is that these people for the most part are scared to death literally of Saddam Hussein! They have been conditioned to do what they must to survive under his rule.

The Iraqi that did surrender did not know the english language, but, somewhere along the line they learned these words..................."Americans, we not want fight you"

 

[JellyBaby]

HappyPuppy, I think that's a fair assessment of things. I believe construction of the gas pipeline is underway. From what I understand it was a stated foreign policy goal during the Clinton administration. Someone out there wants it really, really bad.

And speaking of Wild Bill, he said in an interview a couple weeks ago that he'd be surprised if the Whole Iraq Thing took more than 2 or 3 weeks. So there ya go.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy You assume it will be all military in Baghdad. Tell me, as a civilian, if you could get your hands on a gun, what would you do if invading enemy soldiers started coming? You could turn tail and run. Or surrender. Or fight. Many will choose the third option. As far as fighting a battle they know they will lose, consider we "knew" we would be overwhelmed by the British. Worked well for them didnt it. Eventually, Iraq will fall. We are simply too powerful and will completely crush the Iraqi people if that is what it takes I disagree about the civilians picking up guns and fighting. I don't even believe that their military will resist for very long, just long enough to make it look good.

You may be right, but as for me, if you were a Chinese soldier invading my home to liberate me, I would shoot you.

You weren't there in '91 were you? I know it has been quite some time, but, I do not think that much will have changed in regard to the people of Iraq, or its military. What I think you are missing is that these people for the most part are scared to death literally of Saddam Hussein! They have been conditioned to do what they must to survive under his rule. The Iraqi that did surrender did not know the english language, but, somewhere along the line they learned these words..................."Americans, we not want fight you"

You are right to say I was not in Iraq in 91, but you werent in Baghdad in 91 either were you? Many of the generals said afterwards that they were glad they did not have to send in troops to engage in urban warfare. I maintain that invading Chicago would be completely different than the dairy farms of Vermont. These people do not love Saddam, but you are invading their homes. He is the devil they know. You are the devil they do not.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CPA
And with this, we can all lay to rest that this decision was Bush's only. With the full support of the Congress (less Byrd, of course), Bush is sending a clear message to both the UN and Iraq that delays and deceit will no longer be tolerated.

I don't see how you say the decision isn't Bush's alone. The Congress just gave Bush authority to use force. The decision to use that authority is still Bush's.
Hopefully Bush finishes this war up by 2004, so noone has to clean up that mess after he is "economy stupid"ed out of office

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
HappyPuppy, I think that's a fair assessment of things. I believe construction of the gas pipeline is underway. From what I understand it was a stated foreign policy goal during the Clinton administration. Someone out there wants it really, really bad.

And speaking of Wild Bill, he said in an interview a couple weeks ago that he'd be surprised if the Whole Iraq Thing took more than 2 or 3 weeks. So there ya go.

Actually it a pipeline thru afganistan has been a desireable thing for about the 20 or so years by various companies and countries. As far as I know no pipeline construction has started or will start until things are known to be stable enough to start. Right now the US is putting 200M towards new roads.

 

[glenn1]

You are right to say I was not in Iraq in 91, but you werent in Baghdad in 91 either were you? Many of the generals said afterwards that they were glad they did not have to send in troops to engage in urban warfare. I maintain that invading Chicago would be completely different than the dairy farms of Vermont. These people do not love Saddam, but you are invading their homes. He is the devil they know. You are the devil they do not.

Your premise, that the conflict would inevitably deteriorate to urban warfare, isn't necessarily true. WWII provides some examples... Germany didn't need to lay seige to Paris at the beginning of the conflict, the Soviets fought the Germans tooth and nail in horrendous months-long city seiges such as at Stalingrad, and at the end of the conflict, the cycle was completed by the Soviets not needing to lay seige to Berlin.

No realistic way of telling which outcome would result in Iraq if it came down to that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JellyBaby HappyPuppy, I think that's a fair assessment of things. I believe construction of the gas pipeline is underway. From what I understand it was a stated foreign policy goal during the Clinton administration. Someone out there wants it really, really bad. And speaking of Wild Bill, he said in an interview a couple weeks ago that he'd be surprised if the Whole Iraq Thing took more than 2 or 3 weeks. So there ya go.

Actually it a pipeline thru afganistan has been a desireable thing for about the 20 or so years by various companies and countries. As far as I know no pipeline construction has started or will start until things are known to be stable enough to start. Right now the US is putting 200M towards new roads.

200m? This from oil companies or taxes?