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

suppose any one troop can occupy and can control an area of Iraq of about 1000ft with his weapon, thats about .12 sq miles of prime Iraq soil under American control

given that Iraq is mostly unstable due to the fact we're fighting a Iraq mafia/triad which uses gorilla warfare- at 169,234 sq miles of relatively spread out terrorists

with this it is calculated that we will need at least 1.5 million troops in Iraq to fully occupy and control Iraq completely and absolutely- this given that the American troops can hold that .12 sq miles on their own, but since the Iraq military is also on our side- the American deaths compared to Iraq enforcements equalize each other out

so the question is what will happen next? will the US resort to sending over about 1.5 Americans to help quil the violence or will this war rage on forever? seriously what will happen next?

2007-07-23 15:46:17 · 6 answers · asked by Flaming Pope 4 in Politics & Government Military

When i mean complete control, the 1.5 million is the number of which the weapon ranges of 1000ft start to over lap each other

2007-07-23 15:48:00 · update #1

yes i know about strong points and that stuff, technically speaking it just shows the concentrated killings from all over the country grouped into one place, seeing how we're not just going to demo a whole city, the numbers stick pretty well since its mostly troops

2007-07-23 15:57:47 · update #2

I dont know why im adding so many deatils today- did i speel guerilla wrong? opps i quess i did, lol, the guy who said i shouldnt be in charge of target selection is right, i dont give a rats *** about that country, if it were up to me i would have put out large rewards on the capture of the terrorists and set warnings out that we are going to bomb the cities for the citizens, then have every major city bombed down to ashes, suspected hideouts mini nuked, then clean sweep the country from east to west for insurgent surviors who weren't beat to death by citizens that are pissed at them

2007-07-23 16:06:19 · update #3

6 answers

Boy am I glad you aren't in charge of target selection! You don't know that most of the provinces in Iraq are safer than downtown Washington, D.C. after dark. You can't even spell guerrilla correctly, let alone know that most of the "militants" our troops encounter are not Iraqis!
Iraq is unstable because it was a British-created piece of political fiction in the first place. There were three entities
there: the Kingdoms of Mosul, Babylon and Basra. The demographics of those three areas haven't changed and are inhabited by three main groups with big differences:
Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims.
So, pacification doesn't require all those riflemen you write about unless you are adopting the trench warfare, frontal assault strategy of World War One!

2007-07-23 15:57:01 · answer #1 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1 0

It all depends on who is elected President.

There is also a lot wrong with your logic. Just to begin with, you cant just spread troops around the entire country. You will need strongpoints to counter enemy strongpoints.

Try playing Risk.

2007-07-23 22:54:30 · answer #2 · answered by Hjaduk 3 · 0 0

What do you mean the Next Iraq war...... Can we finsh this one first

2007-07-23 22:53:38 · answer #3 · answered by just me 5 · 1 0

ya risk is a very good game haha

2007-07-23 22:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by Barca17 4 · 0 0

Some people will die, some wont.

2007-07-23 22:54:23 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

another troop surge and then another and another

2007-07-23 22:50:55 · answer #6 · answered by billc4u 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers