2007-05-30 14:02:10 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes actually, in WWII.
And Steve, how about comparing the number of U.S. Service Members killed for a more realistic comparision? There were years in the 1980s (peace time) when the number of Service Members killed was similar to the number killed in Iraq War years.
2007-05-30 14:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Both were really sick. WWI might have been a bit worse because it was a battle of three Emperors who should have known , if they had had any brains, that they were on their last legs. WWII was about revenge, and how a two-bit corporal could take over the world (and almost did). It's tough to say which war took more lives - a lot of people died from starvation in the first dust-up, but then their were a whole lot of people that were deliberately murdered in the second go-round. Personally, I think it's a toss-up. Whenever a person dies because of the decisions made by another person - it's f***ed up.
2016-05-17 08:35:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a liberal who ran that war, FDR.
Since we had been attacked, and were fighting the country that actually attacked them, and helping liberate countries that had been taken over by an invader, it was generally considered a just war.
On the whole, all Americans, including liberals (who have been a majority for a long time) supported that war.
Invading someone who hadn't attacked us, against the will of nearly everyone in the will, and a plurality of Americans, and then completely messing up that country, were wrong from the start.
If Bush had wanted to liberate Iraqis, he wouldn't have dropped cluster bombs on residential districts, fomented sectarian hatred, given the resources of the country to known thieves, and rounded up and torture and raped thousands of citizens.
It was an unjust war, unjustly and insanely run, unpopular from the start. (That is, before Bush started slaughtering Iraqi's more Americans opposed it than supported it -- once he started dropping bombs, a lot of people felt it was wrong to oppose him.)
The World Wars, and our participation in them, were not.
Whoever told you liberals opposed those wars was lying to you.
2007-05-30 15:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. United States involvement in WW1 and 2 were absolutely necessary. Invading Iraq was a war of choice. VERY big difference!
2007-05-30 15:53:20 · answer #4 · answered by I am that damn good. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. but we questioned how long the occupation would be. Like with Iraq.
The Iraq war was won over 5 years ago. We are screwing-up the occupation and somebody has to hold Bush's feet to the fire. He obviously can't handle what he started and needs supervision.
2007-05-30 14:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberals were in charge during WW2 and it didn't last as long as this Iraq war.
ZING!!!!!!!
2007-05-30 14:10:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
At least they didn't have to wait long, the never-ending "war on terror" has been waged since 2001, and Bush has yet to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden.
2007-05-30 14:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
liberals were the ones fighting.
republicans were the ones that didn't want to get involved and guys like prescott bush were trading with the nazis until the govt FORCED him to stop.
2007-05-30 14:07:38 · answer #8 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
of course. anything that is long and brutal seems to last forever.
until the end of these wars there was no end in sight.
we all have our doubts.
2007-05-30 14:12:34 · answer #9 · answered by madman8718 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no,but it lasted 31 years technically
2007-05-30 14:09:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋