Can we compare the Iraq war and the 9/11 attack with WWII?

Question

We lost a few buildings and 3000 citizens in the Arab attack on the twin towers and we have spent 500 billion over the past 4 plus years in revenge against the wrong people and lost another 3000 in the effort. We invaded one tiny little country with a weak army and a leader that fled and hid and we are helpless against those people to have what is a "win".

In WWII we spent less time winning a war with numerous well funded and well armed clever and strong enemies all around the world and about 400-500 thousand americans died fighting until we won with certainty and got unconditional surrender of the enemy. We then occupied them successfully and built them to be good democratic friends to this very day.
Why are we so inept now? Is it because of the bad leadership, the poor army we have, the rightness of our cause, the strength of the enemy & their cunning leaders, the training of our troops, etc?
How can we be so weak as to fail to win this one little war against one small army

SK33T3R- the 14 boys that attacked us were all arabs in this country legally with passports and green cards. Osama Bin Laden is an Arab Prince of a very rich oil family. most of his followers are arabs too.
So that is why I call then arabs. Iraqis are NOT arabs. They are traditional enemies of arabian countries. They are our traditional allies against the Persians
(Iranians) We put Saddam in power to battle the Persians for us after they (Iran) deposed the Shah that we had set up as a puppet for our oil compnaies.

m c - I did not say they were cunning, I asked if maybe that was thereason to start a discourse. i do not know the anser thatis why i ask. It does seem that they are a bit cunning to have done so much and messed up so bad with one little tiny attack.
KNOW THINE ENEMY. We must speak truth to power and to ourselves. our enemy is cunning and ruthless and dedicated religious fanatics. they are hard to defeat apparently by the results so far.

arvada man- Gee i did not reaize we had already won that war. thanks for the update. i do remember the big mission accomplished sign on the Aricraft Carrier when bush arrived in his flight suit as if he were a fighting man.
I think the occupations of japan and germany wer a bit more peaceful becasue we actually vanqisuhed that enemy and got them to sign a surrenedr before we occupied. That is what makes it an occupation. iF they do not surrender and keep on fighting, then we have not won and the war is not over. Sorry to break the news to you this way. It just the rules of war. Not me.

Answer 1

I think the answer is primarily two-fold (although this certainly a simplification)....

1) This is a very different type of war. It is not organized and we are not fighting an organized state. We are fighting in a country where there is a civil war. Also, our enemy is willing to die to kill and fighting such opposition is an enigmatic task. Our leadership failed to realize this an is trying to fight a conventional war. The infastructure in Iraq is also lacking. This war is quite similar to Vietnam--fighting an for a people that for the most part do not want us there.

2) The complete lack of an international community. President Bush ostricized the UN from the start and without the widespread support and/or advice from an international committee winning a war that is being fought in a method in which (by and large) we have never had success with is nearly impossible.

Answer 2

Ok you have some major errors in your statement. First WW II was not done with less time. We won in Iraq (The official Battle) in a few weeks and have been occupying for a little longer. The occupation is where there has been failures not the battle. We spent about 4 years in the actual Battle with Japan and Germany and have been occupying them ever since! When I was stationed in Germany in the early 90's there were almost 400,000 Americans stationed in Europe and we are getting angry about 150,000 in Iraq?

Second - We are fighting the right people in Iraq the insurgent movement is Al Quida, you may disagree with the location of this battle but this is a larger war and we are kidding ourselves if you think that once this is done then we are done. Radical Islam will not stop it's pursuit against the west until they lose or turn the West into a Muslim State or destroy it.

Think of it this way the first battle with Afganistan and we are still there the second was Iraq and smack dab in the middle of these two countries is Iran which is a bigger player and no matter what side of the isle that you fall this is not going to stop.

You can say were done dealing with this and surrender in Iraq wait a few years and then lose a city because of a nuclear bomb going off in one of our cities goes off and then we can finally have enough deaths so that those on the left figure we have to react and then we are right back.

I am not sure we have bad leadership in Iraq I think that the problem is that the American people are inpatient and get to hear about every failure each night on the news. WW II have millions of failures but we have not heard such critisism of FDR do we?

Additional Details:

By victory I mean that the overall transfer of govenment took place quickly and yes it was a victory. In just a few years they have had elections, they have built a govenment and they do have some control. In contrast we were the govenment of West Germany and Japan until late 1949 before any elections took place and we are still there currently there are 47,000 troops in Japan, 30,000 in South Korea and 117,000 in Europe! If we have any problems right now it has to do with the fact that we do not have enough of a presence in Iraq which is currently what the left is fighting against!

Perhaps the greatest reason that we have a problem is that we have so many of you people on the left waving a white flag in the face of victory and giving our enemy hope. If we fail in this mission the cost is going to be far greater than the 3 - 10 Thousand troops who you say you support (Ha Ha) but it may cost us a city or two.

Answer 3

We did what we had to do in WWII and the entire country was supporting the war and the troops.
This war, like several before it, is not fought aggressively, as it should be. It could have been over in a matter of months if we would have gone in with all our force. But our military does not want to kill civilians and we let the enemy grow.
Americans can't handle what needs to be done. We have rallies by ignorant people - Jane Fonda, p l e a s e - who haven't a clue what we are fighting.
I don't give a royal rip about saving the country of Iraq. I am concerned about America's safety. And the more we verbalize on the air, Internet, news papers, the more aggressive the enemy become. America is too weak to protect ourselves.
Guess what. We can't love these people into submission. That is a Fonda type joke as she relives her youth at our expense. As are too many others (Kerry) who can get their hands on a microphone.
You say 'we lost a few buildings and some people' as if that is not worth our trouble. I hope you realize that the reason they were able and willing to attack us is because they had already attacked us and killed many on our soil and abroad and we did nothing. If we responded the same to 911, I would be warring a black tent today, assuming I was not beheaded or stoned.

Answer 4

Hi. Hawndawg
1. Twin tovers attack, get angry and sad when I sow it on TV.
2. Arab attack is wrong. It was a terorist attack . Before ending the cold war there was two big forces on earth. That was a balance for earth. Now US is trying balance the earth.
3. For US Army we cant say weak army. But I dont know any vicrory (without alied forces) US Army has .
4. I hate terorits , wars and killing the people that type of skin, relicus, nations ... If we born on this earth at the same time this means we must repect to ALL LIFES on earth. You may say you are listenin to much John Lennon (give pice a chance) but we must do some thing to peace ...

Answer 5

Don't confuse 9/11 with having anything to do with Iraq. The attack on our country was not an Arab attack. It was an attack by Al-Quieda.

The Iraq war is un-winable because it is not a just war. We have killed more people now than Saddam did. Bush and his cronies have gotten us into a mess that will take a long time to get out of. We may never repair our good standing in the world community.

Answer 6

As for occupation; the West German people were happy when we liberated and occupied them, otherwise they'd be under Soviet rule like their Eastern counterparts. As for the Japs, they were an honorable people and did what their leadership told them to do. The people and the foreigners in Iraq are a completely different and fanatical enemy.

I think our biggest problem over there is that we are under the microscope and every little thing no matter how minuscule we do wrong; it's blown out of proportion by the media. Hence the rules of engagement are way to strict. If the generals over there could do exactly what they wanted to do, I think we'd be a lot better off over there right now.

Answer 7

Its Good your at least asking Questions trying to understand. 1st there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Saddam and his 2 sons were near the top. Neutralized. 2nd No one talks about the Gas Sarina can't spell it but it was in Jordon and came from Iraq... What Many forget is that if we don't keep some of these kinds in check shortly when they have Nuclear Bombs and more Chemical weapons It surely wouldn't take them long or there agents to Wipe out a City with something. The Terrorist of today are probably far more of a Threat than Hitler and comparable to those in Japan. They will die trying to kill Infidels.

Answer 8

We have a good President, he has done nothing wrong, Our troops are the best. Stop putting down Americans. Bush wants to win and will not stop until he does, this is one brave man. If the Democrats had their way, they would like to see us fail. There is no way that Iraq war and 911 can compare to WWII. You need to do more research before you start posting this trash on here. Those so called cunning leaders are a bunch of terrorist. As far as the debt, when you Grandpa was a teenager, gasoline was probably a nickel a gallon, price of everything has gone up. But how would you know all this, you can not even get your facts straight. Anyone that would call terrorist cunning leaders is sick.

Answer 9

911 may certainly be compared with Pearl Harbor as a catalyst for this conflict, although Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

Just as there's evidence to suggest that FDR had foreknowledge of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to gain entry into WWII via "the backdoor", there are certainly enough suspicious events surrounding the Bush administration's actions both prior to and on 911 itself to raise the suggestion that some within the Bush administration possessed foreknowledge of an impending attack and let it happen.

Answer 10

Your answering your own question No you cant compare the two. The US defeated the Iraqi military in 3 weeks the taliban and al-queada in about the same time and occupied the countries. In WWII its took almost 4 years just to get to the boarders of Germany. We never acually invaded Japan just occupied it after 5 years and had to drop 2 nukes. So no you cant cmpare the two they are two totally different scenarios.