[Krsqk]

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.

Yeah, that's why he refuses to put a timeframe on the war, instead saying that we'll fight "as long as it takes."

RE: casualties--Right now, the PR problem with casualties is that there are too few of them. The media can take time to cover each one in graphic, mind-numbing detail and still not have enough news to fill up their 24-hour coverage. They would still report it if there had been hundreds so far, but they would be limited to just one or two stories, instead of forty. I'm not saying that I want casualties, just commenting on the coverage of them.

RE: civilian casualties--There will be civilian casualties in any war. That is part of the cost of waging war. The US is pussyfooting to prevent any civilian casualties, perhaps too much to wage an effective war. When the fight gets to Baghdad, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian casualties. If the US is too aggressive, they will be perceived as uncaring. If they are too passive, though, hundreds or thousands more US troops will die (aren't their lives worth something, too?), as well as far greater numbers of Iraqis who die from the side-effects of having a drawn-out war fought in your city. [edit] Oh, and there is the technology to negate the defensive advantages of city fighting, but it's not ready for widespread use yet. Probably in 2-3 years, though, it will be standard equipment at the division level, at least.

RE: WMDs--My guess is that Saddam will use them at some time against the US troops, provided he gets the chance. I also have a suspicion that he has several mobile launchers sitting out in the desert, just in range of...the coalition POW camp. Yep, let's finish off the infidels and the cowardly traitors at the same time. Just a guess.

[ March 28, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]