History has been witness to a lot of battles in which many of them prove evidence that no.s do not help in winning a war...
2007-01-12
02:59:30
·
18 answers
·
asked by
Shahbaaz Ali K
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
Battles are decided by various factors. The number of men, the commanders of each army, and the terrain advantages are among the most prominent factors.
2007-01-12
03:00:02 ·
update #1
Battles throughout history have shown that morale and the quality of troops are often more important than quantity. The Persian Wars, for example, show that superior morale can overcome numerical disadvantages, especially in the Battle of Thermopylae. A good example of the opposite is the Battle of Gaugamela. Quality of the army is determined by morale, that is, spirit of the troops; equipment, and training of the troops. A unit may charge with high morale but less discipline and still emerge victorious
2007-01-12
03:00:28 ·
update #2
Despite this Bush continues his tirade of sending more troops to Iraq despite there already being more than 130,000.... Let me know what you think...even if you contradict me...
2007-01-12
03:00:37 ·
update #3
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle
2007-01-12
03:01:00 ·
update #4
the very first factor you listed was the number of men.
Is insulting Bush that important, that you don't even see your own hypocrisies?
2007-01-12 03:06:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
I think you somewhat contradict yourself when you say many factors determine who wins the battle and war because you specifically state issues such as terrain, morale, and numbers of soldiers! However, I must admit that you have stated some very good points but left out "public opinion." Battlefields have changed dramatically over the centuries. No longer are massive amounts of bombs and personnel needed to fight such battles. In todays era...more support personnel are needed than actual soldiers as such during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Technology with smartbombs, pilotless aircraft, and such have changed the way we fight! Bush understands a lot more than many of us give him credit for. The President is continuously briefed by experts in the field on a continuous basis. The general public gets their briefings from the news media which can often times be biased and sensationalized to stir anxiety towards a specific issue....why not...it makes them money!! Does it prevent the devestation caused by the likes of Saddam....no!....only showing those who've ASKED for our help in spreading a democratic society does!
2007-01-12 03:10:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by KC V ™ 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Bush's problem is that he is using standard military tactics against something that is not using standard military tactics. Terrorism does not work like battles that took place on the Western Front.
Tiny terrorist cells of 10 and 12 exist all over Iraq and often have no knowledge of other tiny cells that exist in in the same city let alone the same country. Capture one cell and they know no more information except about their own cell.
Bush cannot fight a war on terrorism by simply throwing more Americans at the problem. The body count will increase and eventually, if it has not already happened, this will turn into another Vietnam which faced the same problem. The Viet Cong from the north were terrorists. The US didn't understand that then and Bush doesn't understand that now. Adding more numbers gives Saddam's supporters more targets.
2007-01-12 03:09:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Because he isn't a General. As Commander in Chief, he depends on the advice of the JCOS and Pentagon experts for this sort of strategy. If he gets bad advice and acts on it, mistakes occur and he is ultimately responsible. Which is exactly what happened and what he said in his speech.
And the morale of the military isn't helped by a bunch of foul mouthed bashers which I am sure you have seen here on Y!A. These moonbats aren't helping anyone other than themselves in their pathetic Troll attempts.
The battles you mention are of an era so different and so vastly removed from modern combat that I really don't believe they apply here. America's military is expert at taking control of a region. Holding that region for prolonged periods is difficult at best and not something we are equipped to do especially since our military was pared to the bone in recent decades. If we were like China with the population they have, we would simply consider our people as fodder. We don't and we don't. To compare America's military to that of ancient Greece just doesn't work. Numbers, conditions, technology...it's just too different.
2007-01-12 03:21:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rich B 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
His plan is to send more troops to work alongside the Iraqis to "hold and contain" the sunni's and shiite's so that their Iraqi leader (Maliki) can do his job. They are trying to hold elections and build their new government, but the sectarian violence is uncontrollable. Condleezza Rice claimed last night that Maliki had wanted to do this himself using only the Iraqi forces, but was unable to so early. She said that it would be summer before his own forces were able to contain the violence themselves and that with our help, it could be done now. One Senator last night said we needed to teach Sunni and Shiite families to "love their children more than they hate their neighbors" and I thought that was a very powerful statement. I have yet to decide whether or not I agree with the President's "new" plan. I question Maliki's sincerity, however I am (personally) hoping he does follow through with his promises. If not, I say enough is enough. Condoleezza Rice stated last night that "we will know very soon" whether or not he (Maliki) is following through with his obligations". I believe that, if he does not, we need to get the hell out of there and let them deal with their own mess. My patience has been tested, and is wearing thin. I want to help the Iraqis, but not at a huge American price...
2007-01-12 03:13:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by mommyismyname 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
that's a huge truth, but something where general numbers don't win battles, but they help. But in this particular case, send more troops won't help think in part he is doing this to intimidate more the rebels in Iraq, and the Iraqi government most be pushing too for more help, you have to remember this is not a conventional war.....
2007-01-12 03:11:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Its good to know we have a war planner on this sight. I am not a war planner, and have 0 military experience, so I can't really say too much about this new idea. What makes you so qualified? I don't know if it will work or not, but everyone has been saying something needs to be done, this is something. It won't get any worse.
2007-01-12 03:36:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Curt 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bushitler can't admit when he is wrong. Only Rice and McCain are on his side now. Even Cheney has disappeared again. Bush does not even know how to explain what "success" is in this Iraqnam fiasco, yet he claims that if we pull out, we will "lose." If you can't explain what it means to win, how can you say what losing is?
Even Rice said this increase of 22,000 troops and the adding of 95,000 more military bodies over 5 years is not an "escalation." Of course she could not explain to Congress why she felt that adding troops was not an escalation.
These people are idiots. Even many of Bush's closest aadvisors and the Generals do not agree with this. He had said he would do what the Generals advised, and then when he didn't like their advise, he replaced them!
I thought we had a Democracy here -- not a dictatorship.....
2007-01-12 03:08:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
Bush hasn't realized this is a guerrilla war,you cant hit what you
cant see.He is leading the USA into another Vietnam,a fight you
cant win.You are just putting more targets on the streets for
the insurgents to hit.Lets face it you have changed the oil sold
in euros by Saddam back to dollars,and you now control the
last oil producing country on earth(ask yourselves this was it
worth it?)
2007-01-12 03:34:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Maybe, but then again, Generals are usually the last to change their tactics unless he/she is like Patton -- "Rommel, you son-of-a-*****, I read your book!"
The only reason the USA was victorious in WW1,II, and the Korean War was because 1. The citizens were united for a cause and we were willing to sacrifice our time, money, raw materials, and labor to ensure that whatever was destroyed was replaced immediately. 2. Our ability to retool, rebuild, and revamp, with creativity, sensitivity and tenacity, along with our elected officials' ability to work with the leaders of other countries without alienating them, helped us.
GW Bush refuses to listen to anyone. He is in a "self-destruct and bring the USA down with him" mode. He is blinded by ambition that is misguided and favors only money and greed. He gives the impression that he's religious while his actions put him squarely in league with the devil.
Let's have our citizens unite to demand accountability from our government officials. Please join Citizens Protecting Your Rights in sending pink postcards to our elected/appointed officials.
We have numerous groups across the country participating in this patriotic campaign and would appreciate your help.
Citizens Protecting Your Rights is a non-profit, unfunded organization that depends on the volunteer efforts of citizens to ensure that our laws are enforced, our Constitution is upheld and that our elected and appointed officials uphold their oaths of office. Our current campaign is a pink postcard campaign. We are asking everyone to send pink postcards to all their elected and/or appointed officials who are not doing their jobs. Those postcards say: "You're Fired". Everyone is free to word their postcards however they wish but we'd like 12 to 20 million American Citizens to stand up and be counted and let our officials know that bad business as usual will not be tolerated.
Here is what our postcards say:
For failure to uphold your oath of office and the laws of the land;
For failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America;
For failure to keep our borders secure from all enemies Foreign and Domestic and
For failure to enforce the laws against illegal aliens, and those who hire, harbor and help them, and giving illegal aliens preferential treatment...
You're fired!!!!
We demand that your paycheck be confiscated and used to pay back our social security. Any balance remaining should be used to pay off the national debt.
--------------------------------
You may copy our wording. Highlight the information in this e-mail, do a control C and then in your open document do a control V which will paste that wording onto your document.
We have pink postcards available. Each person is required to pay their own 24 cent postage per card.
2007-01-12 03:37:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by MH/Citizens Protecting Rights! 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
The generals have been in military service, Bush skipped out on his. thus he does not really understand the problems. He could use a geography lesson also, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
2007-01-12 03:07:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anne2 7
·
0⤊
4⤋