France Insists It Wants U.S. to Win War

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by garzy, Mar 28, 2003.

  1. garzy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #1
    Article

    Another Article

     
  2. medea macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #2
    Re: France Insists It Wants U.S. to Win War

    Thank you for posting that.
     
  3. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #3
    Key word in the quote above: quickly

    Of course the US will win this war. We have far more troops, firepower, money, etc. The key to minimizing casualties and destruction of property is for the US to win as quickly as possible.
     
  4. MacFan25 macrumors 68000

    MacFan25

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Yeah, I think that the US will win too. It's just that I hope that the war gets over with quickly.
     
  5. mikulashek macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    I don't consider what I do "living."
    #5
    We all hope this is over and quickly, and clearly we wouldnt want a man the type of Saddamm to be victorious, what gets me is why does everyone doubt Frances allegiance, I mean you can still be allies and disagree with tactics, and obviously they wouldnt help Iraq, they view Saddamm as a big a threat as the U.S. only wanted to handle it differently.
     
  6. pa31t macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Location:
    minnesota
    #6
    I agree, the French are still our allies and have nothing against the american population at large, both the U-S and France wanted the same result, they just disagreed (strongly) about the means. The big unanswered question is: will the end justify the means used by the Bush administration?
    And by the way, I do travel overseas alot, and the rest of the world sees Bush as the "bad" guy, not us.
     
  7. tcolling macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    #7
    Actually...

    Actually, in numbers, the Iraqis far outnumber the US / coalition. It is estimated there are 400,000 Iraqi military personnel. Of course, only about 30,000 - 60,000 Fadayeen Saddam, and (I think) another 30,000 Republic Guard, which I believe are the only ones that are actually fed and properly trained. Right now, the coalition has about 90,000 troops, with another 120,000 in various stages of deployment, but they won't be ready to fight for about three weeks.

    Of course, our weaponry and training far exceed anything (conventionally speaking) that the Iraqis could throw at us, and I'm assuming that's what you meant.
     
  8. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    Re: Actually...

    The coalition can bring more troops in, should they be needed. The maximum number of coalition troops (not the current) far outnumbers the maximum number of Iraqi troops.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    How many troops must we commit for how long before the pesky "D" word starts getting tossed around... anyone know?

    I always knew I'd win the lottery someday!
     
  10. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #10
    A draft is the last thing this administration wants. If they have to start up the draft Bush can kiss re-election goodbye.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    Who says there's going to be an election? Martial law, baby!
     
  12. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #12
    I wonder how hard it would be to envision the 2004 election being "delayed" "a while" due to terrorist concerns. Think about it... everyone out of their houses on election day, huge masses of people in relatively vulnerable voting centers... I'm sure Ashcroft or whoever could find a loophole for that. On second thought, when you're head of the DoJ, and the Supreme Court loves you, who needs a loophole?
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    Now there's thinking.
     
  14. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #15
    I hope that what you envision would never happen, because if this happened...our democracy would be gone. Sad and scary!
     
  15. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #16
    I think they were a little slow to respond. They only did it for financial reasons, the boycott must be working. It's always best to be on the side of the winner!
     

Share This Page