the whole US military in Iraq can kill in a year? Maybe Bush's new stragety should be using the US Air force/Navy to win the war on terror in Iraq (in which there would be zero US casualties) rather than send in 20,000 new US troops in which there will be lots of US casualties?
2007-01-09 02:36:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
People, there has been collateral damage in every major war in the 20th, 21st centuries & Bush calls this the WAR on terror so that means some civilians are going to die unfortunatly. If their were a way to fight a bloodless war then I'm sure everyone would want to know about it. And would you rather send US troops back to Somolia again? Remember "Blackhawk down"? Remember what's going on in Iraq? Is that what you rather have to save a handful of civilians?
2007-01-09 14:00:26 · update #1
pretty much what his daddy, and clinton did.
2007-01-09 02:44:23 · answer #1 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, the army and Marine Corps could stomp on them. exceedingly in the event that they had to hold this combat everywhere as properly the Continential US. the only thank you to circulate hundreds of tanks and different automobiles is with the aid of deliver. we could wipe out the airborne men formerly the Air tension controlled to circulate a million military armored battalion.
2016-10-30 10:29:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YEA!!!!
You solved the whole crisis. One small minor problem.
Bombs can kill massive amounts of people. But, you need the ground forces to secure the area bombed or it will fall back into the enemies hand.
Warfare 101
2007-01-09 02:47:11 · answer #3 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well the war in Iraq is not a part of the war on terror. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
Big difference.
2007-01-09 02:49:29 · answer #4 · answered by vertical732 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I've yet to hear that they've actually confirmed killing any terrorists at all, particularly since there's no one there to even try to confirm.
Seems to me that Bush is "just lobbing missles into the desert" - a strategy he has always warmly embraced.... :D
Another in a long line of flip-flops.
2007-01-09 02:45:16 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
More weapons means more business for the ones who make weapons. More business for Dubya.
2007-01-09 03:58:58 · answer #6 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is unfotunate that America is parroting the Israeli words labeling each and everyone they kill as terrorists, and that includes infants, women, and children.
2007-01-09 02:45:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Since you figured that one out by yourself maybe you can solve the immigration issue as well.
2007-01-09 02:43:30 · answer #8 · answered by Jedi 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
then you would complain about collateral damage.... its always which ever tactic isnt being implemented that should be used isnt it?
2007-01-09 02:54:57 · answer #9 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not amazing simply because your facts are wrong.
2007-01-09 02:48:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋