the Iraq war is similar to the First World War - massive casualties but getting nowhere fast?
2007-01-02 22:16:17 · 17 answers · asked by Dr Watson (UK) 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I'm heartened to read that some of you believe progress is being made in Iraq. My comparison with WWI was based on 'useless slaughter' and no visible improvement or plan - it seems however, that not enough deaths have ocurred in Iraq for this comparison to be made - perhaps I'll post my question again in a year or so!
2007-01-02 23:52:42 · update #1
World War I was led by one of the worst Presidents we ever had, Woodrow Wilson. Iraq is being led by the worst President we've ever had. I see a correlation here.
2007-01-02 22:21:01 · answer #1 · answered by Debra D 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The first world war was approx 4 years long (1914-18)
Iraq was invaded in 2003, so this year will be 4 years since the invasion.
America has just lost its 3,000 soldier killed, The UK is near to 300 I think.
In the first world war over a similar period the UK lost 750,000 soldiers killed in the fields of Flanders, the French 1,300,000, the Germans approx 1.7 Million. The US lost 126,000.
The casualties are not anywhere near the same scale, but after Saddam's execution, the Iraqi conflict looks like it will drag on for many years.
2007-01-03 06:35:53 · answer #2 · answered by Corneilius 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, WWI had many many many many more casualties. Doesn't even compare to Iraq. WWI was all out battle between nations while Iraq War is part of democracy promotion and war on terror. Completely different. In WWI we didn't stay in Europe to rebuild countries like we do for Iraq today. We blew them up and went home, the end. Iraq War is different because no one or few(from US) wants to leave the ground out of fear that it will be taken over by 'terrorists.' WWI and Iraq War can't even be compare.
2007-01-03 06:34:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't compare one war to another. For example, the Iraq war may have far more sophisticated weapons, but the number of casualties does not necessarily mean a lack of progress. It's all down to circumstances that happen during a conflict which determine its outcome.
2007-01-03 06:32:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think its too hard to make a comparison due to the huge difference in time and the fact the majority of us were not around and so cant make a fair judgement. As well as the fact the wars were for different reasons and are being approached in different ways.
No way comparable
2007-01-03 06:26:10 · answer #5 · answered by Carrot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war has not had "massive casualties".
Not even close to a typical world war.
2007-01-03 06:22:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
All that I can tell you is that there is no need for this Iraq CR@P. The British soldiers should not be over there in the first place. It was Blair and Bush who have caused all this trouble for NOWT.
2007-01-03 06:34:58 · answer #7 · answered by CT 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not really its much more comparible to Vietnam. first world war fought in trenches across hundreds of miles caused a stalemate.
Iraq war was won very quickly, the problems lies in dealing with insurgents who live among the people, so are very difficult to root out.
2007-01-03 06:44:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think all wars are like that. Look at the American civil war. There was trench warfare then, it cost millions of dollars and thousands of lives and no one got any where fast.
Iraq is just like any other war, pointless, expensive and unnecessary.
2007-01-03 06:19:59 · answer #9 · answered by The Alchemist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no the first world war had cause iraq war was for greed
2007-01-03 06:29:19 · answer #10 · answered by needanswers 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋