Skip to comments.
Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General
Reuters ^
| 3-24-03
Posted on 03/24/2003 7:37:15 PM PST by oursacredhonor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-203 next last
To: oursacredhonor
Well, at least its down from the 12,000 stated earlier today. Things are improving!
2
posted on
03/24/2003 7:38:02 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Arkinsaw
that figure still sounds kinda high.
To: Arkinsaw
just nuke 'em.
4
posted on
03/24/2003 7:40:58 PM PST
by
exsolus
To: Steve Van Doorn
For a city battle?
Hell, that's how many NONCOMBAT injuries you can expect.
5
posted on
03/24/2003 7:41:03 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: oursacredhonor
Rumsfeld does have a tendency for tunnel vision.
Let's hope the general has missed this one.
IMHO, the foot soldier will definitely be the "smart weapon" to finally win this war though - just like he did in WWII.
6
posted on
03/24/2003 7:41:17 PM PST
by
Happy2BMe
(HOLLYWOOD:Ask not what U can do for your country, ask what U can do for Iraq!)
To: oursacredhonor
As always, for everyone who reads this thread, despite what you hear in the media,
casualties does NOT equal deaths. It includes wounded
3,000 casualties would likely be somewhere in the range of 600-800 killed. Not many cities with a population of 6 million have ever been taken from a hostile force with attacking casualties that low. None, in fact.
7
posted on
03/24/2003 7:41:42 PM PST
by
John H K
To: Steve Van Doorn
It's 1.2 percent of the total coalition forces involved in the operation.
To: Arkinsaw
Well, I am still going to stand on 2 Corinthians 10 vs 4 & 5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in god for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captitity to Christ.....Father, please send your angels ahead of our troops...We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.
9
posted on
03/24/2003 7:43:52 PM PST
by
LADYAK
To: Arkinsaw
Well, I am still going to stand on 2 Corinthians 10 vs 4 & 5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in god for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captitity to Christ.....Father, please send your angels ahead of our troops...We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.
10
posted on
03/24/2003 7:44:13 PM PST
by
LADYAK
To: oursacredhonor
Isn't this one Clinton's faggot "Generals"? I thought the rest of them went back to their former jobs as Arkansas State Troopers.
To: Arkinsaw
he is being kind to Gen Franks. THere are a number of
analysts who are raising these questions.
Perhaps we can slow the pace down while we secure our supply lines, bomb the enemy lines,and get more troops.
sorry in advance if i sound like i have played too many video games.
Perhaps someone with more military experience can share their views. Please speak up!
12
posted on
03/24/2003 7:44:26 PM PST
by
vp_cal
To: oursacredhonor
"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.
Does McCaffrey forget that technology has greatly changed since he was in Iraq, let alone during WWII? Wasn't he Clinton's drug czar? What great accomplishments did he perform while in serving Clinton's administration?
13
posted on
03/24/2003 7:44:43 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: oursacredhonor
I thought we were winning. Do we still own Afganistan??? Oh, that's right, we do. Can we handle a bunch of Iraqi-Yokels with bombs, missiles, 350000 ground troops? Of course we can.
They always say the same sh!t, "I'm an ex-general and I wasn't asked for my assesment from the president, boo-hoo."
14
posted on
03/24/2003 7:44:50 PM PST
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: Arkinsaw
We take 3000 and they take 30000+ .. sounds reasonable to me.
15
posted on
03/24/2003 7:45:41 PM PST
by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: John H K
And casualties would include injuries like spraining your ankle jumping out of the troop carrier, etc.? Anything that's treated gets counted as a casualty.
McCaffrey is a partisan democrat who is as disingenuous a war commentator as he was drug czar. I don't believe anything he says.
16
posted on
03/24/2003 7:45:45 PM PST
by
motexva
(Cool site I saw today - antiwarcelebwatch.blogspot.com)
To: oursacredhonor
basically the same as the World trade center. Only this time the our folks have a fighting chance, are well armed, and well trained. Saddam must surely realize he is not attacking secretaries and salesmen this time.I know we will lose good men in this fight. The question to ask is how many will we lose if we don't fight? Good luck and God speed to our men...........
To: LADYAK
We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.
Nobody said anything about 3,000 slain. See my previous post.
This is an ENORMOUS problem because the military is never going to stop using "casualty" to cover killed in action, WOUNDED in action, AND missing in action, and I see no sign whatsoever from the media that they are ever going to stop using "casualty" as a synonym for "dead."
18
posted on
03/24/2003 7:46:40 PM PST
by
John H K
To: motexva
Yes.
Cities tend to cause lots of casualties--semi-soft bodies falling on hard concrete will do that.
19
posted on
03/24/2003 7:46:50 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: Steve Van Doorn
that figure still sounds kinda high.
It all depends on what we do and how we do it and how the Iraqis react.
Some British General said 12,000 casualties.
Al Haig said today that this regime will collapse with stunning speed unexpectedly at some point.
Who is right? Don't know.
20
posted on
03/24/2003 7:46:51 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-203 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson