Another trip to Arlington...

[ylexot]

wanted to go in light just to prove a point that we could do it

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare.

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:

 

[itsbob]

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare.

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:

I like the Strykers too, but not as a replacement for Heavy Armor..

Just like the Marines, when you send in LAV's or AAV's you better have Armor nearby to pull them out if they get into a heavy fight..

That is correct, but the argument before the war was just that.. you go in light, you won't have the manpower on the ground to take of business as it needs to be done.... Nobody doubted we would win, but they were concerned about controlling the country after the victory.. or having "drag troops" to engage and kill the enemy that was bypassed as the front line Blitzkrieged to Baghdad.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare.

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:

I guess it would depend on what you want to call victory. If the point was to bust up the place and depose the leader, then yes. But it always takes more to occupy, and if the point was to occupy and control then I would say we have not acheived victory yet.

 

[Go G-Men]

What did the American people think....

I guess my question is "What did the American people think was going to happen". When ever we send American men and women into harms way there are going to be casualties. This is an unfortunate effect of "war". You may not agree with the President and his handling of Iraq or anything else he is doing but as a country we cannot go into any conflict with a quota in mind on how many casualties are we willing to accept. This has in the past (read Vietnam) and is today a major flaw in the american people and the folks who represent us. When we have many of our largest media outlets harping on the number of those killed in Iraq and the outcry of the people because of those reports we give the enemy reason to believe that if they can keep up their attacks we will wilt and fold our tents and go home.. The truth is this actual causes more deaths and injuries to our troops... As a whole we should tell the enemy that we are not going anywhere until the jobs done. Period.... Than we take away their hope and their ideas and ideals will rot on the vine...

But we wont do that.... We will fight amongst ourselves rather than against the enemy... We either finish this mess in the middle east now or we will have to do it later....

 

[Larry Gude]

Thank you...

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare.

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:

...mission accomplished.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I guess my question is "What did the American people think was going to happen". When ever we send American men and women into harms way there are going to be casualties. This is an unfortunate effect of "war". You may not agree with the President and his handling of Iraq or anything else he is doing but as a country we cannot go into any conflict with a quota in mind on how many casualties are we willing to accept. This has in the past (read Vietnam) and is today a major flaw in the american people and the folks who represent us. When we have many of our largest media outlets harping on the number of those killed in Iraq and the outcry of the people because of those reports we give the enemy reason to believe that if they can keep up their attacks we will wilt and fold our tents and go home.. The truth is this actual causes more deaths and injuries to our troops... As a whole we should tell the enemy that we are not going anywhere until the jobs done. Period.... Than we take away their hope and their ideas and ideals will rot on the vine...

But we wont do that.... We will fight amongst ourselves rather than against the enemy... We either finish this mess in the middle east now or we will have to do it later....

I predicted on the day we surge deployed for the war in Jan of 2003 that we would be there 10 years.

 

[Go G-Men]

I predicted on the day we surge deployed for the war in Jan of 2003 that we would be there 10 years.

We may well be there 10 yrs... That may be what it takes..

What most people forget is that we have been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for 50+ years...

 

[itsbob]

Another trip to Arlingt... 01-25-2007 01:31 PM LAV's never need help getting back out, they are the pride of the Marine Corps, Tip of the Spear!

Actually there was a firefight in Baghdad where they found out how good the LAV is. It's NOT a fighting vehicle and is thin skinned. They lost about a dozen Marines who died onboard when they were ambushed, and two or three LAV's got caught in the kill zone as the rest got out of Dodge.

LUCKILY there was real Armor nearby, and they sent in the M1's to get the LAV's and Marines out. Now, why the local commander sent LAV's into a Hot area when he had heavy armor available, or at least not send the Armor with them is beyond me.

LAV is a LOT like the Bradley, but the armor more resembles the M113.. their Armor is only 8 - 10mm thick.. Swiss cheese if hit by 12.7mm or better. That's why the L in LAV stands for LIGHT!!