Would you enter a war if you knew that the entire United States would be devastated forever? Probably not. That the entire military would be destroyed? Probably not.
Now, can you give ME a number? Assuming you're the president, and we never went to Iraq at all, how many troops would you see killed before you would pull out of Afghanistan and let the radical Islamists have it back again? Whatever the number is, I hope you would keep it secret.
If you deal with military planners every day, how about asking THEM this question? What's THEIR top number for Iraq? What was the top number in WWII? Korea? Any other war we've ever fought? Have you ever seen any reference to an American historical war plan that said "if this many troops die, we surrender?" ANYWHERE?
Armies surrender when they can't fight any more. When there are so many of them killed or wounded that they can no longer carry on the war. We are not within light years of this.
I pointed out a congruence of numbers at the beginning of this thread. That we have lost, in a war of occupation, over three years, the number of military personnel that was lost in a single month in Vietnam in 1968. A normal person might think this was an improvement.
Current Events » in reply to It was a fair question
If that strawman was any bigger, I could take it to the Burning Man festival.
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Grim milestone...
- Or
- re: Grim milestone...
- While you're crunching numbers don't forget to add in the injured.
- Don't bother Tom.
- re: Grim milestone...
- Driving up the mountain today...
- re: Grim milestone...
- "Personally, the number is 1."
- Surely you've heard of Pyrrhic victories?
- It was a fair question
- Wait wait wait...hold on there.
- If that strawman was any bigger, I could take it to the Burning Man festival.
- For Tom the loss of life and wealth is not the issue...
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- "The Iraqi civilian dead over the past three years is STILL far less than the average killed annually by Saddam over his regime, "
- WHAT BS
- does that annual average include the Iraq-Iran war and the gassing of the Kurds? (n/t)
- Nice try, but I can see the boilerplate response a mile away. (n/t)
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- re: For R.L. and others the war is not the issue...
- avoiding the question
- Really? How?
- "Personally, the number is 1."
- It shows that our strategy is faulted.
