Why do Bush supporters compare the war in Iraq to WW2?

Question

There are no relevant similarities whatsoever in terms of the actual war we are fighting on the ground right now. First of all there is NO single clearly identifiable enemy in a uniform. There is no country or central government to attack. There is no infrastructure to cripple.

The war on terror and the war on Iraq are more like Viet Nam and the War on Drugs than anything else. It's guerilla warfare in an urban environment and it's a vague theorehtical war agaist a philosophy.

What makes people think that blind perserverence alone will "win" any conflict. Are people that ignorant that they cannot see this is NOT WW2. Saddam was not Hitler. Get a clue guys, come on!

I realize you like the romantic association with "the greatest generation" and a good old fashioned war where you know who the enemy is and everyone plays by the conventional rules of warfare and whoever fights hardest wins but THIS AINT THAT KIND OF WAR.

When will the republican brain trust realize this?

Answer 1

There are some parallels, what about when Hitler told Austria to give the Nazi party control of their country or else Germany would invade, they built up troops outside the border, made demands for Austria to give over their police force (disarm) and Austria met each progressive demand, the Germans invaded anyway, there were even cheering (liberated) civilians who thought German rule would increase their power

Answer 2

all people who defends the President comparing Iraq to Vietnam has no longer been paying interest. he's fought this assessment for a protracted time, in actuality in b8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797f he suggested at a press convention: " Q thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April [b8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797f] is starting to be the deadliest month in Iraq because of the fact the autumn of Baghdad, and a few all people is comparing Iraq to Vietnam and speaking a pair of quagmire. Polls instruct that help to your coverage is declining and that fewer than 0.5 individuals now help it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam assessment? THE PRESIDENT: i think of the analogy is fake. I additionally take place to think of that analogy sends the incorrect message to our troops, and sends the incorrect message to the enemy." Bush grew to become into adamant that Iraq grew to become into no longer something like Vietnam because of the fact the commencing up, yet now that the assessment serves his purpose he very incredibly makes use of it to assist staying the direction. Oh and Kerry pointed it out in b8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797fb8b4b727d6f5d1b61fff7be687f797f. So now he's have been given the main appropriate message?

Answer 3

It's the last war that truly went well for the U.S. Dubya and friends want to cast him in the light of FDR, not LBJ or Nixon. It's a very romantic notion built on thick rhetoric and pageantry, but not one that's going to sink into the minds of a shrewder general public.

Answer 4

I use the stat.s of WW II because they are pertinent to the situation. Facts don't change and should never be ignored. So, my response to a previous string... I apologize that it's a little long winded.

I remember Vietnam. I served with a lot of guys who were in Vietnam. If we listen to the whining liberals and the media, it truly will be a repeat of history. 3,000 in 3 years? Think about this. In WW I, the average monthly death rate was 98,000 men. In WW II, Patton drove the U.S. 3d Army across France in '44. His average rate of loss was 1,300 men a month. But between 08Nov and 07Dec1944, he lost on average 812 a day. So my point here is that the liberals are completely incredible with their expectations of a zero loss war. 1,000 men a year for three years? That works out to 2.7 men a day.
Now, moving away from the morbidity reports associated to this war, let's look at what happens if we pull out before the Iraqi government is strong enough to support and defend itself -- as we were forced to do in Vietnam.
It is a given that the insurgents (terrorists) behind all of the bombings and murders are being sponsored by Iran and Syria. They're doing their best to further destabilize an already shakey situation. That Nelson of Florida and Kerry of Mass. have gone to Syria without State Department approval to try and negotiate does not help the situation. Should we pull out early, those two countries stand ready to over-run the border and take over the oil producing capabilities of Iraq. Think about this, two countries who both sponsor terrorism, being incharge of most of the world's oil. Can you kiss your economy good-bye? How much do we rely on oil? To manufacture steel? Plastics? Rubber? Energy? I promise you, the world as you currently know it, will cease to exist.
My recommendation to you is to either pick up a gun or smoke another joint and shut your mouth and leave the dirty work to the real men of the world. Stand up or step aside. Some of those 3,000 were personal friends of mine.
****The next day****
What "Hotwad" doesn't seem to realize are two basic points. First, the war was NOT started on a false pretext. The war is a continuation of the first Gulf War (AKA Desert Shield/Storm), which was brought to an end with a U.N. Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement that was repeatedly broke by Saddam Hussein and that the U.N. was too corrupt with the French, Germans and Russians accepting bribes in the "Food For Oil Program" to itself uphold. It should NOT have been up to the U.S. to then have to form a new coalition to do the U.N.s job, but no one else had spine enough. The threat of WMD was VERY real, considering Saddam's unabashed use of them in the past on his own people. That Jimmy Carter gutted the CIA and left this country virtually blind and relying heavily upon foreign aid for it's intel is a crime unto itself, but no one seemed to care in the years that followed to do anything about that. And my second point is that you can bomb them back into the stone ages all you like, but you cannot secure the position (and win the war) until you commit and put boots on the ground. And here's where you may have just cause to dislike Rumsfeld and Bush. When it was originally presented to the Joint Chiefs, they came back with a number of projected troops needed to do the job. Rumsfeld cut that number in half and Bush approved. If we'd had enough boots originally, we could have secured the borders AND the national treasures. I doubt that you would be willing (or able) to recall that the excessive bombings and murders began as the new government of Iraq was beginning to form and the coalition forces were winding down. Had those borders been secured properly -- including to Saudi Arabia, the likelihood of the current situation arising is much slimmer if almost non-existant. Until we secure those borders and strangle/exsanguinate the flow of incoming insurgents (terrorists) we will be hard pressed to stop the hemorrhage of bloodshed caused by an un uniformed group who can come and go at will because they can esily hide behind civilians, women and children. Having not learned much of anything from the "Vietnam Experience," the mindset of our (military) leaders is not geared towards fighting such a force. Sometimes, an extreme presence, leaving such a large footprint that it seems we have men (and women) standing about with their thumbs up their butts is truly the only viable solution. Much to the dismay and disgruntlement of a generation who does not understand the definition of "Sedition" or "Treasonous Speech." Honestly, as much as you may disapprove and disavow, you must someday recognize that the leader of al Qaida in Iraq and the "President" of Iran both made quite a point when they commended the American people for having voted in the Democrats in the November elections -- as reported on CNN's Headline News the morning after those elections. They REALLY do pay attention to what we say and do here, and your words, only give cause to aid and comfort those terrorists who wish only to do us grave harm.

Source(s):
"War As I Knew It" by Gen. George S. Patton, copyright 1947, Houghton/Mifflin Corporation publishers.

I did 20+ years working with the Corps. And upon retirement, I went back and got a BA in History. What have YOU done for your country?

Answer 5

It is the war of aggression same as WWII.
It is a war for economic gain(oil), same as WWII.
Certain minorities were targeted same as we target the Arabs.

Answer 6

They compare it with WW2 because we won that war (which was the last war we did win).

It really should be compared to Viet Nam!

Answer 7

WHAT!? What a disprespectful thing to do! Probably because American Republicans think that the US is the entire world, that the other countries don't matter.

Answer 8

The war on terror is a hoax!

Answer 9

Only the ones ignorant of history do that.

Answer 10

it's just a form of wagging the dog.....