How is it that 2 wimpy liberal US Presidents won WW2 & our current tough guy President can't defeat a few...

Question

thousand camel jockeys in Iraq?

If Bush allowed the US military to use it's full force the war would have been over 2 years ago. No military can win a "limited war" like the one the US is fighting in Iraq and there is no reason for the US to cut & run because it can win RIGHT NOW (without having to send more troops) by using all the weapons in it's arsenal. So how about it Bush, let's see how tough you are & do what even the wimpy liberal Presidents have done by using the full force of the US military. The US taxpayers paid for all the stuff & they want to see a US victory in Iraq. So show some courage, save your Presidency and be a winner not a loser by using everything you got (except Nukes).

I'm sorry but if the US military in Iraq use every weapon in it's arsenal to take out the Sunni triangle, West Iraq, supply routes on the Syrian/Iranian borders (& tiriple the amount of US/Iraqi Govt. troops patroling Iraq) and insurgency or no insurgency the war in Iraq would be over in 3 months). Would their be civilian deaths, yes, but what do you think has been happening in Iraq for the last 3 years? You want that to continue for another 10 years with the current US strategy? WW2 killed millions of civilians but millions more would have died if the US military hadn't helped stop it in 3 years. Using unlimited rather than limited war tactics in Iraq can stop a civil war, stop foreigners from taking over Iraq, keep the Mideast from total chaos, & save US troops lives. If anyone has a better idea please tell me.

Answer 1

Look at all of our post- WW2 military operations.

Korea - A bloody stalemate, that ended up with the exact same status quo of the region as when it started.

Vietnam - Complete disaster. The troops did their best and fought well. But was so politically compromised from the start, it was destined never to succeed.

Gulf War 1991 - Only a partial victory. Kuwait was liberated, but Saddam, the culprit of it all, was allowed to remain in power and thumb his nose for more than a decade.

Afghanistan - We never wanted to commit 100% over there. I'll be forever curious why we would send 25,000 troops to get Manuel Noriega in Panama, but only 3,000 to get Bin-Laden. I guess it's a bigger sin not to kick back drug money to the CIA than killing 3,000 Americans in a terror attack.

Iraq - Too many wrong assumptions about the Arab mentality. They don't want democracy. The first chance they got after Saddam's ouster was for the Shiites and Sunnis to settle old scores. They will probably have another decade of that ahead of them.

We are now a hyper-sensitive, almost bi-polar society. We have short attention spans and tire of things quicker. Thanks to the 24-7 media, most of them with an anti-Bush agenda have succeeded in sapping the much needed morale in this war. But in all fairness, the Bush mishandling of Iraq left him as open prey.

Answer 2

These are two very different conflicts: The enemy in WWII was trying to conquer foreign lands, this takes massive amounts of cash and supplies as the attacking side continues to advance. Germany and Japan's resources were quite limited. Germany could not afford to supply it's own troops with winter gear in the Russian fronts, Japan had minimal natural resources, i.e. steel, iron. Since we continue to use old technology for our transportation needs. The iraqis have $CASH$ from oil. They have a religion we do not understand. They are all zealots that believe in death while fighting the infadels, anyone who does not believe in Allah, is a great honor. This one of the worls's oldest civilizations, The Iraqis have a long history of heroic battles and defeating stronger enemies, during the 1990's they were in a long war with neighbor Iran, that was bloodier than the current war. War is not new to these peoples, this is a battle tested country. Why are we in Iraq? For the control of the flow of the world's oil reserves. To control who gets the world's oil is the REAL power we are after. If we were only there to free the peple of Iraq, would we not have left after capturing S. Hussein? We are fighting on their land, they know the terrain, and how to protect it. The insurgent iraqis are just trying to hold us off, using cowardly made bombs that inflict severe injuries to our young troops. This is done to get a welling of sentiment in the U.S. to end to the conflict. The Iraqi's are fighting a guerilla war, we are not fighting against uniformed soldiers, all the emenies and friendlies look the same. What should we do, kill everybody and take over the oil fields we came for? The rest of the Middle East would not stand for that! We need to get off of OIL as our main source of transportation fuel right now! Not only for the enviorment, but to ruin the Middle East's Economy!

Answer 3

First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all. And change the system so that it is cheaper, and also so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance. Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well. Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this. FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage. Last of all, the second Guardian link has an insurance executive talking about how his company and others like it push up costs, buy out politicians and refuse to pay out when people are ill.

Answer 4

"The US taxpayers paid for all the stuff & they want to see a US victory in Iraq."
What victory do you think we're going to achieve? There is no comparison, none, to be made between WWII and Iraq. In WWII, we were fighting against a well-established enemy, entire countries and their forces. In Iraq, we are fighting an ideology that permeates the society. Even as we kill more and more of the enemy, their brothers, uncles, fathers and sons are all coming in to fill the gaps and kill Americans.
Whatever 'everything you got' refers to is unimportant, though it begs the question: what is he not using already? The draft?
One more thing: Truman? Wimpy? The only man in history to have the balls to drop the bomb?

Answer 5

It's all in what we're fighting for. In WW2, we were fighting empires that had viciously attacked nations throughout the world including ourselves and also inhumanely slaughtering jews and gypseys.

Today, we are fighting some Iraqis which we never were even able to find any evidence that they were any threat to us. The Iraqis had been our allies up till Bush 41 decided to end the alliance. People don'r know why we went 8000 miles to attack some country that had never done anything against us. There's no focus or sense of urgency.

That is the primary difference. In WW2, we were under attack; now were under mass delusions.

Answer 6

An occupation as a colonial power and a world war are two different things entirely. We don't have any chance of succeeding in Iraq and there is no clear objective, much less good options.
Our " tough guy " pResident is a bully and coward.

Answer 7

Hmm let's see.

There are a few key differences here:

1. Germany, Japan, Italy, and the rest of the Axis had a standing army.
2. The Allied forces were a lot more potent than what our allies were in Iraq.

It's not so much about the president when it comes to winning the war. It's about intelligence failures, and this can be blamed on the way intelligence agencies and government have become bed-buddies, and telling the people in higher places than them what they want to hear.

Answer 8

Becasue they basaically allowed the military to plan and control the war, politicians make the worst commanders in chiefs, for real, they have no conception of the miliatry tactics needed to win any war

Answer 9

Too many whiners watching to see how many civilians are killed. He got caught up in the PC war craze.....and turned our soldiers into policeman.
Knowing the status of the lefts and others stand against the war...the enemy is using the press to help fight their war.
If the enemy were to wear a uniform they would be wiped off the face of the earth...but because they are fighting in an unconventional manner and hiding among the civilian population...the civilian deaths are glamorized for their advantage.

Answer 10

The two wimps had a well defined enemy and the support of the country behind them. The current wimp isn't fighting a war on a nation. This is pure politics and making money. It has nothing to do with winning.