A miserable milestone was passed the other day. America's (and Britain's) disastrous war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the US involvement in the Second World War. Yes, this conflict has outlasted a war that ended with total victory over Nazi Germany. Hitler declared war on the US on 11 December 1941. Exactly 1,244 days later, on 7 May 1945, Germany surrendered. The US invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003, and this weekend it is 1,267 days later, with no end in sight.
Our thoughts go out to the Iraqi people, who have to put up with the stench of foreign occupation, on a daily basis.
2006-08-27 02:26:52 · 19 answers · asked by BT 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just so everyone knows, if you post an answer that this guy doesn't like, he sends nasty emails. This is the gem I got for posting an answer:
Hello C*nt,
You must be another robotic bush wacker.
huh.
This guy is a real gentleman
2006-08-27 03:33:00 · answer #1 · answered by Catty 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Odd I thought WW2 ended when the Empire of Japan gave an uncoditional surrender. What the hell were we doing in the Pacific? Was this some sub-war that I didn't know about? Where the HE LL do you learn history? Anyway the war in Iraq ended when Saddam left and we captured Baghdad. This is an attempt to build the country. We were in Germany until 1950. That's right over FIVE YEARS later. Actually we still have bases there but that is another story. So I think you need to learn your history, instead of making new history up. Also for the record we don't have people like the Soviets helping us win, and Hitler NEVER SURRENDERED so we don't know how things may have gone had he not gone after the USSR and then killed himself. It was the new leader that was telling the soliders to surrender to the US because he didn't want them caught by the Soviets, and for good reason. The Soviets were proably more responsiable for the defeat of Nazi Germany then anyone based on that. So imagine if the Sunni and Kurds teamed up against the Shittes and so they all were willing to surrender to stop it. Then they put the country togther, and we took all the credit. That would be the same basic thing.
2006-08-27 09:37:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
WW 2. US involvement - December 1941 to September 1945. Total 3 years 9 months.
Iraq 2. March 2003 to August 2006. Total 3 years and 5 months. Did you forget Japan?
Your basic fact is wrong.
How about other wars.
American Rev. July 1776. September 1783. 7 years 2 months.
Civil war. April 1861 to April 1865. 4 years.
Viet Nam War. 1957 to 1975. 18 years.
Cold war with the Soviets 1947 to 1991. 46 years.
How about the war on poverty? It's been going on since the 1960's at least. We're definitely losing that one. Let's get out before we spend another $Trillion plus per year on it.
Don't forget other wars not involving the US.
30 years war 1618 to 1648. 30 years
100 years war. 1337 to 1453, actually 116 years.
Crusades 1095 to 1272. A series of wars that lasted 177 years.
2006-08-27 10:11:57 · answer #3 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war was over long ago. We're there because we aren't finished reparing and improving the infrastructure, training Iraqis to take of their own business and providing security against terrorists. You seem to want to support the terrorists and insurgents with a cut and run strategy.
Maybe you are confusing the Iraq war with the overall global war on terror, or do you advocate that we also surrender to all the terrorists?
"stench of foreign occupation" - that smells like an America Hater to me!
I suppose you believe the Iraq war was all about us trying to take their oil too. Blood for Oil, Bush Lied, People Died, Dan Rather is Hero! We're a Global Village! Edwards and Hillary in '08! You guys are such easy targets, couldn't be easier if you painted bullseyes on your clothes.
2006-08-27 10:54:02 · answer #4 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Germans and the Japanese put up with the stench of foreign occupation on a daily basis for 5 and 7 years respectively. It seems to have worked out pretty well for them in the long run.
Technically, the war in Iraq was over when Saddam's government surrendered. The occupation of Iraq then began, which - compared to the length of time that the US was on Japanese soil - is still in its infancy.
Our thoughts go out to the Iraqi people in the hope that some day they can look at this occupation as a turning point for the better in their history.
2006-08-27 09:34:36 · answer #5 · answered by AmericanDreamer 3 · 7⤊ 1⤋
That's not a fair comparison, and I think you know it.
As a previous answer pointed out, if the Iraq insurgency wore uniforms and didn't hide among civilians, they'd be a lot easier to mop up. Also, the Soviets had a lot to do with Germany's defeat, whereas in Iraq, the only major powers doing any of the "heavy lifting" are the US and Britain.
Your thoughts should go out to the Iraqi people, who have to put up with the stench of militant terrorists willing to kill them to achieve their own ends on a daily basis. My thoughts also go out to all of the allied soldiers out there doing the dirty work of taking those bastards out.
2006-08-27 09:41:55 · answer #6 · answered by Chris S 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the evil reign of Sadam lasted way to long, and the US finally saved the people.
but sadly with the new rules of war, we can't just kill the ememy like we did in WWII. Had we been able to actually go in and kill the enemy, level towns and destroy the enemy like we did in WWII we would have won in a few weeks. But sadly the new rules have made this not possible.
So yes it is a sad day when because of rules we can't really fight a proper war. For that we are sorry.
But they are not under occupation and any idea of that is pure bull and just from people who don't know what we are really doing.
2006-08-27 09:32:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
You idiot the war was over a month after it started. Is there no new government set up in Iraq.....That means we won! what part of that does anyone not get?
The german nazi's kept killing our guys for 10 years after the end of wwII. Only then we would string em up when we caught them on the spot.
2006-08-27 09:44:47 · answer #8 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Are the casualties the same? NO, NOT EVEN CLOSE! Was the media up the armed forces butts spreading lies? NO! Two different cases and two different results! If World War II was fought under today's conditions, we would probably still be fighting!
2006-08-27 09:38:39 · answer #9 · answered by Bawney 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think a lot of you need to go watch some documentaries on Vietnam.
Seems like to many Americans have forgotten.
2006-08-27 16:39:01 · answer #10 · answered by MotorCityMadman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋