Isnt it the same as our air strikes? The only difference i see is that, our air strikes damage the buildings so Big Haluburton can rebuild them for a modest fee.
2006-06-25 13:01:57 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No it isn't a cheap tactic.
The reason is because you have to look at the bigger picture. Remember that movie 'Red Dawn' where the USA had been occupied and lost. There was a group of teenagers who setup roadside attacks.
That is what ppl do when they have been occupied by a country that is more powerful. I mean what do you expect? Do you think they will just say 'oh ok let me just give up my way of life and culture' and surrender to this all powerful boss.
That isn't human nature. They fight back in the only manner they can knowing they can't take us head to head. Would we not do the same?
2006-06-25 13:17:52 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes they are very cheap and cowardly tactics. The primary reason the insurgents use IEDs and VBIEDs is because they have absolutely no chance of defeating our forces using conventional warfare tactics. Of the 50 plus convoys I traveled in, we were hit by road side bombs 7 times. We lost 7 people and over a dozen were injured. And I was over there as a civilian contractor for the DoD. In fact, I am attempting to secure another contract to return to Iraq. It's not for the money, but as a former army officer, I still have the desire contribute and support our troops.
2006-06-26 07:53:22 · answer #2 · answered by iraq51 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Halliburton is too busy trying to rebuild power plants, water supplies and sewer systems to care about the buildings we or the terrorist blow up. Not that you'd care since you already have a demeaning view of the only company in the world that can get the job done.
2006-06-25 20:04:18 · answer #3 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ive been hit by one before and let me tell you, when you get hit by one you realize it is cheap but very effective... If it wasn't for the Geneva convention we could use em but we also are not fighting a uniformed military,and by the way the roadside bombs don't always hit soldiers, they hit civilians too. I am a huge fan of guerrilla warfare and wish we practiced it more cuz it sure as hell works against us.
2006-06-25 20:15:49 · answer #4 · answered by twackman4life 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the territory!
We had RPG's, claymores, bouncing betty's and bobbie traps, plus kids with explosives on them that would blow them selves up, or throw a grenade into a civilian vehicle carrying military.
We had no armored Hummers or good body armor or Kevlar helmets! Though I am certainly glad they are getting them!
And our base camps were often attacked usually starting with mortars!
But to answer your question, if we weren't therr no one would be getting killed by IED's. This war, according to Bush has been over for more than 3 years!
2006-06-25 20:08:59 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is cheap. We aim airstrikes at the bad guys. The cowards (terrorists) pack a dead donkey full of explosives, hide in a ditch close by and wait for US soldiers or civies to go by then blow it up and run away. Sounds like a bunch of cowards that are afraid to fight a real war.
2006-06-25 22:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by John Deere Guy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cheap but very stupid and scary,will never find the solution for peace.
2006-06-25 20:14:57 · answer #7 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. invading a country under the premise that they have WMD is cheap.
2006-06-25 20:04:24 · answer #8 · answered by sphere_68 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
agree
2006-06-28 17:54:47 · answer #9 · answered by aimeemay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think so i would agree with you.
2006-06-25 20:04:05 · answer #10 · answered by 1chunx4u 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋