English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Source: Military (USA) very strong and big. Insurgents: Wear tennis shoes and blue jeans and have basic weapons, no tanks, no vest to protect their body. Do not get paid every two weeks like the USA military "BUT" are beating the USA day in and day out. Much like Vietnam.

2007-07-15 22:17:34 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

5 answers

Erudite, when do you plan to stop drinking your own urine? It is not good for what little brain-power you still have.

So tell us, when did you stop beating your wife?

2007-07-16 07:11:48 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0 0

The reason is simple. The US army are set up to fight a conventional short term war. This is how Rumsfeld foresaw the future of warfare and help restructure the US military.

Iraq is anything but conventional. The use of hit and run tactics and guerilla tactics has proved successful in various arenas. People talk about the Vietnam experience but this also involved conventional warfore. The best use of guerilla warfare and most successful this century was used in Ireland by the flying columns against the British forces in the 1920's. The Irish were poorly armed but well organised with support networks among the people and a knowledge of the terrain that were using. The British were fought to standstill and Ireland gained its independence. Much the same is happening in Iraq.

What use is a tank in a crowded street fulled with two or three insurgents using AK-47s. AK-47s are a solid weapon, easily concealed and used and they kill just as well as others. So far there have been 3500+ US troops killed and over 10,000 seriously injured. Nobody talks about the injured but these are just as bad for army moral and numbers. If there are 150,000 troops in Iraq then 11% have been taken out by the Insurgents through death or injury.

2007-07-16 06:13:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

History taught us all that the one with conventional weapons ALWAYS LOSES the guerrilla war. Will the Iraq war be the first guerrilla war won? ... I can't bet on it.

You can't win against a guerrilla fighters that enlist and join in the same force we want to use against them. Think about it. An insurgent does not have a mark on his face yielding. They are part-time Iraqi National Army/Police, and part-time insurgents planting roadside bombs.

My conclusion to this war is, INVITE other damn coward Arab states to do something in their neighbor or face a consequency of fleeing refugees and Al Qaeda next door threatening their regimes.

2007-07-16 06:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Fist off if we did not care about killing friendlies then we would be out of there already.

We could level that sand box from the air and that would be that.

Second, we have a congress that wants to micro manage everything. Our boys and girls also have 7 rules for engagement. Let then do their job. They were trained to kill and break things let them loose.

2007-07-16 08:30:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You must not have listened to your hero Zawahiri's latest statement. Even he realizes that the insurgents are getting their butts kicked.

It's rare that the insurgents even target US troops. Instead, they target innocent people in the markets.

When they do have to face US troops they get crushed quickly.

2007-07-16 05:23:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers