Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
France Insists It Wants U.S. to Win War
- Thread starter garzy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
And by the way, I do travel overseas alot, and the rest of the world sees Bush as the "bad" guy, not us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I always knew I'd win the lottery someday!
A draft is the last thing this administration wants. If they have to start up the draft Bush can kiss re-election goodbye.
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?
I hope that what you envision would never happen, because if this happened...our democracy would be gone. Sad and scary!
