The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Attrition Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: casualties
gary    7/2/2001 1:19:25 PM
The extreme reluctance of the U.S. to accept any casualties in combat has probably kept us from accomplishing many worthwhile international goals. The most often mentioned being our lack of resolve in desert storm. Invading Baghdad was not a very attractive option for removing Sadaam because of the unavoidable heavy U.S. casualties that would have resulted. I am of the opinion that considering the tens of thousands of men, women and children that die violently on our highways every year, we should be more willing to commit our volunteer troops to heavy combat. As a former combat arms soldier I believe our troops are willing to fight these battles if they are carried through to a "true" conclusion. Korea and Vietnam are obviously not good examples of this. I also do not understand the media outcry against friendly fire casualties which have always been part of war when reducing highway deaths is not even an issue. Perhaps the traffic death/combat casualtie comparison is not valid in most peoples opinion but after working in an emergency room for a few months as I have it might make some sense.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Peace    RE:casualties   8/9/2002 5:40:25 PM
not war but love
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:casualties   5/24/2004 12:39:52 PM
Is it our reluctance to accept casualties or our reluctance to accept long fighting without a clear end? For that matter is it the American people's reluctance or the politicians misplaced fear of such. However the effect is unfortunatly simmilar. Thus we sometimes have the worst of both worlds. We intervene in a nasty situation. We remain just long enough to make people mad and possibly do a lot of damage(for artillery shells, even with high-tech, know no chivalry). But we leave before we can make improvments leaving the situation the same as before. Except that we have thrown away American lifes. As well as money, world standing and morale. Which often means more American lifes later.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy