im not downplaying the war in iraq but from what i last heard, about 3500 americans died so far. in this day..

Question

and age, do any of u think that lets say an amphibious assault at a large stage involving serveral divisions in a heavily defended beach, involving heavy casualties on our forces and having as many as have died in iraq over a four year period happen during the amphbious landing over a 3 week period? my main answer is, can america "stomach" this? would the politicians allow the possibility of very high causalties to say, just to occupy a landing field? i see now that the military operates now in small units. do u think america can "stomach" another iwo jima, with very high causalties over a short period of time, like in weeks, just over an air field? the only country i see that can give us this much opposition is china

Answer 1

It's hard to compare 2 different types of war. What exactly are we fighting for in Iraq? Is it on a World War scale such as WWII. Are we really fighting terrorists as the politicians say?

I know there are some who can't "stomach" the losses, but for me, this war should never have been fought, and that is the problem I, myself, have with it.

Let's hope we never have to deal with a full-on war with China.

Answer 2

Air Power, Air Power Air Power.

The US has 12 Carrier Battle Groups. France has 2 Carriers. The Brits have 3 Invincible Class Carriers.

The rest of the world has 0. The Russians have one that is docked and not serviceable. China has 1 or 2 under construction.

I am not going to look up the Air Forces, but I think the US has 6000 total. Add NATO to that.

Then you get to the Sub Force and all the other Naval Forces of NATO.

A WWII type landing is never going to happen in today's military.

Tolerance for loss's will vary based on each situation. It would likely be tolerated as a response. Neither the US or NATO as a whole would likely initiate an action. While we did invade Iraq in 2003.It was a continuance of the earlier conflict like it or not.

Air Power Air Power Air Power

Answer 3

I agree that the people wouldn't stomach it. But also, we are not fighting a nation, but an under ground group. Taking land masses would not do anything for the progress of this war. We took Iraq, and that didn't reduce terrorism in the area, it increased it.
And as far as invading China, are you mad. With their shear numbers, they could run right over us with sticks and stones. One country, with 1/4 to 1/3 of the world population, is not something to be taken lightly.

Answer 4

I think Americans can stomach heavy losses provided we are in a fight we can't afford to lose like WWII and that the losses weren't the result of incompetence or poor leadership.

Iraq, however, is a different story. It was a war of choice and completely unnecessary. Therefore we are not willing to put up with losses.

Answer 5

As long as the media says that we can't stomach it, we won't.
Good thing we have ELECTED a MAN that has the wherewith all to hang in and fight.
If 1/2 of USA cant realize what the fight is for then they deserve what they would inevitabley get without Bush's leadership.

Answer 6

There's enough military power to end this thing in a day or two, but our politicians are too concerned about what the New York Times thinks to actually do what needs to be done.

Answer 7

Sadly, most American are spineless wimps that expect everything to be a Hollywood Movie where we are in and out with victory in a few hours tops.

Answer 8

who wants a repeat of VIETNAM? 58, thousand dead. America is not Scared. All they lack, is COMMON SENSE. Get Out Out, when the Goings good. G.B A.

Answer 9

3500 dead American soldiers.
70,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
That means America is winning no? There is a difference, while WWII was a necessary and just war, this current travesty of political incompetence was brought about by greed and hatred.

Answer 10

yes but it must be something the PEOPLE believe in