What would have been the outcome for the world had our world war II leadersbeen as cowardly as current leaders

Question

We lost more men in the first thirty minutes of d-day than we have during the entire war on terrorism.politicians are more concerned for their own political ambitions and personal and party agendas than they are for stopping terrorism or the safety and motivation of troops abroad.

Answer 1

Our leadership aren't the cowardly ones! Bush has put in motion what the Democrats have been saying needs to be done as far back as 1998! And he's got a lot of hate for it. How's that being cowardly? Those that want to shake their collective fingers at terrorists and tell them it's not nice are the cowardly ones. They believe, like Chamberlain, in "peace at all costs." You know where that got the world the last time.

Answer 2

The WWII government actually did the right thing. At least at first. They were attacked, and they responded with overwhelming force. The only place they got into trouble is that they stayed in Germany and Japan "nation building" afterwards. Set a dangerous precedent.

Of course nobody ever stops to consider, these days, that when the war is over, it's time to go home. I really don't care if Iraq is democratic. If they want a democracy, they'll earn one the same way that we did: by laying down their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors in pursuit of that goal. If they're not willing to do that, and all indications are that they are not, then any freedom they get will be quickly voted away.

Answer 3

To answer the first question, it ,might be a power struggle between the US and Nazi Germany.
As for your later, comments, I agree that too many exaggerate how bad it is going for the troops, however, not all politicians are cowards, the ones that are not are usually not shown by the media. The media mainly shows Democrats which are the cowards. The Presdent is concerned about the lives of the troops but wants to get the job done.
As to the guy above me, Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor, thank you very much.

Answer 4

I see you have the right Idea and if I'm reading you right your talking about those people we voted into office that has recently emerged from the woodwork to let their constituants know their their still alive. I don't know who's side their on. Maybe someone should tell them, we were attacked=in America and the reason we're fighting in Iraq is to get rid of Alquida or keep them out of the free world. I kind of wonder who's side their on.

Answer 5

LoL you compare this to WWII. You are as bad as your boy Bush.
First in WWII we declared war. We did not in Iraq. Germany declared war on us. No one in Iraq declared war on us. In WWII we went after our real enemy. The Empire of Japan and her buddies Nazi Germany, and Italy. Those were called the Axis powers. We had strong allies in UK and USSR. Most countries in the world were involved in WWII where only a comparative few are involved in Iraq. When attacked by Japan we didn't go after India we went after the one who attacked us. Now Al Qaeda attacked us so we go after Iraq. Priorities were right then now they are a bit twisted.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Togo were no two bit enemies. For part of the war we were out gunned. In Iraq we have all the big sophisticated stuff and they have home made stuff.

This is how Bush wants to see himself. He is delusional if he thinks he can compare to Wilson or Roosevelt in times of war.

Answer 6

You are right about the policticians. This is why we are at war. The war is for private corporate interests. Thats all.

Answer 7

You'd be speaking in "nazi".