2007-06-20 13:59:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Almost no one would be killed on the US side, as you may have noticed up until Pres Bush said the major military effort was over.
Right now we are not fighting Camel jockeys. I think the only time they were involved was back in WW I and they were on our side (see the movie Laurence of Arabia).
We are fighting insurgents, terrorists, foreign fighters, and we are in the middle of a civil war.
2007-06-20 14:05:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Gore as POTUS in 2000 with vast city vote and eight? of fifty states could have desperate that 9/eleven replaced right into a criminal expert deal and accomplished little or not something. we'd nevertheless be shot at different than with high priced chinese language/North Korean missles that for the period of many cases HIT. we would not be landmining all the borders as that could succeed and Al Qaeda could be forced to apply the checkpoints that are OPEN for NO obvious reason right into a conflict ZONE the place family members have not have been given any employer attending funerals from Syria, grabbing a gun and murdering somebody. No demise from above to maintain fleers in or out. same element.
2016-12-08 15:05:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are fighting not an army but ambushers.Days at a time our boys and girls just walk around patrolling,those camel jockeys come up for a few seconds and shoot then hall ass.This is not a war.They claim to fight for religion,I think they got nothing else to do.They are mad because they want what we have,so they think if they can't have it no one should.Bunch of dumb asses they live on what the world needs ,oil.They should come together and work though their differences and make some money and buy what they want.
2007-06-20 14:10:22 · answer #3 · answered by Leonidas P 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Damn good question. A hell of lot more if it was not for money grabbing rich Arabs who love a high life style on any body`s back. They have suppressed their people so much it is unbelievable. But unfortunately USA has gone to war with a man who perhaps has done overall more good for his people than any other ruler in middle east. As far how many may be Bush and company are not so brave to have a go at some one who would be able to fight back at them. Perhaps you know what happened when USA took on the fighters of Vietnam./
2007-06-20 14:14:41 · answer #4 · answered by hopeless 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fewer. A disciplined army can surrender in good order without breaking down into an insurgency, and, if the terms of peace are well-negotiated, would probably be able to police the state and maintain order better than an occupation.
2007-06-20 14:03:04 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Fewer.
Proof: Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm
Oh, and as an aside, you're more likely to be murdered in Washington DC rather than as a member of the military in Iraq.
Go ahead. Look at the FBI's national crime statistics.
2007-06-20 14:07:34 · answer #6 · answered by Ch4plain 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps we should look back to Desert Storm, Panama or Grenada
Perhaps we should consider non-lethal force on those that exploit the deaths of our comrades to undermine our mission for political gain. But reality is that we are too disciplined for that.
2007-06-20 14:16:34 · answer #7 · answered by John T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My bet is you probably know little of the Operational Arts, nor do you understand the dynamics of modern insurgency warfare or theater warfare for that matter, so speculating is pointless.
PS. Kevorkians point well taken, but how long did the Regular war last, thats the question.
2007-06-20 14:03:21 · answer #8 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
IED"S & Suicide bombers An army of one? No camels here. TY
2007-06-20 14:09:36 · answer #9 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We did fight an army, it didn't last too long for them though.
2007-06-20 17:08:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋