in ww2 the u.s had artillery planes and tanks in front of troops..cause we were there to win..now we have none of that and our soldiers die daily protecting the civilians that blow themselves up..what sound strategic reason is it diffrent this time????our casualty level is nearing ww2 levels if not over the limit already...what is the reason for such a military blunder and do you think this will lower the united states as a top leading nation after all is said and done???
2007-02-27 13:30:47 · 6 answers · asked by GALAXIE 75 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
131,028,000 US troops died in World War II.
A little over 3,000 US troops have died in the Iraq War.
The US entered WWII in December 1942 and the war ended in August 1945 not quite 3 years later.
The US began the Iraq war in March 2003, and it is still going, nearly four years later.
So it's 3,000 deaths in 4 years vs. 131,028,000 deaths in 3 years.
Or to put it more graphically, about 43,666 average US deaths per year in WWII, and about 750 average US deaths per year in the Iraq war.
This war is being waged very differently from WWII.
2007-02-27 13:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our casualty level is nearing WW2 levels??? Where do you get this? In WW2, millions of soldiers were killed; in Iraq, we've lost 3,000.
In WW2, we were officially at war with the German and Japanese governments. Soldiers were identifiable, and were fighting for their country. We knew who the enemies were.
Now there is no identifiable enemy. Suicide bombers blend in with ordinary people until the last seconds. There's no way to tell which people are friendly, and which are planning to lob bombs at your base tonight.
Back in 1991, when Bush 41 attacked Iraq, he was fighting the regular Iraqi army. You could tell who we were fighting, and we had a reason for going in. We also had allies fighting along with us, and the support of other Arab countries.
George W. Bush wants to be better than his daddy. He had a personal agenda, and tried to convince the country that it was actually in our best interest to attack a country )that hadn't attacked us), on the basis of (incomplete and misleading) information about weapons (that didn't exist).
Yes, Saddam Hussein was an utter bastard. But if we had worked with other countries to isolate him, and used diplomacy to encourage Islamic moderates, we could have built up our reputation in the Middle East.
When Bush started making noises about the Iraq invasion, Islamic extremists started telling their followers, "See, the Americans are coming to destroy all Moslems!" Sure enough, Bush invaded, and the extremists looked like true prophets and got lots more followers.
If George W. Bush is trying to turn the USA into a backwards dictatorship, he's doing a great job.
2007-02-27 21:52:48 · answer #2 · answered by jackalanhyde 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because wars are televised, they are not fought in the same way as they were during WWII. Back then there were more US soldiers killed in certain single battles than have been killed in the whole Iraq war (about 3,000)
In this particular war, the strategists thought that if Sadaam was overthrown that the people would be happy and welcome us as heroes. Unfortunately, Al Queda is also involved, and will kill Americans anywhere that they can be found. This killing, along with the killing by the different factions (Sunni/Shiite) has turned the war into a continuous slow bleed.
Don't forget the rule of our times: They behead us: no problem. We tickle them: jail the soldier.
2007-02-27 21:48:27 · answer #3 · answered by chustplayin 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
after all is said and done, the US will be a banana republic.
2007-02-28 22:32:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
TIMES CHANGE
WE GROW UP AND SEE KILLING EVEN ONE {THE LEAST} DEMEANS US ALL
2007-02-27 21:37:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
GET YOUR F@#@$#ERETUTIUTING FACTS !!!
2007-02-27 21:39:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋