How did it take FDR less time than George Bush to overthrow....?

Question

...the Nazis, Italian Facist and Japanes than it is taking Prez Bush to open the road from Downtown Baghdad to Baghdad Airport?

rukidding,

How do you know if I am a liberal??? I am a very conservative republican and I am asking a very valid question. Don't be so blinded by your part affiliations that you can't see truth. The facts are there.

Answer 1

FDR was fighting standing armies in that they wore uniforms and fought like men within military units. The cowardly terrorists in Iraq do not wear uniforms, look like everyday Iraqis and blow up innocent men, women and children.
Also, like someone else said, FDR engaged in total war, bombing city after city in Germany and Japan in order to end the war ASAP. President Bush should take a lesson from history and let the military do it's job, as disgusting and awful as it might become.

Answer 2

If I remember right, Bush opened the roads in baghdad within a week. FDR beat Germany in 4 years. However, I understand what you are trying to hint at and the problem with your logic is that Americans then had balls, now we are such wusses about everything and so 'me" oriented that we have no will to do anything. Congratulations on the liberalization/destruction of American fortitude.

Answer 3

Why do you say FDR took less time than Bush has taken. The Nazis and Italian fascists began their rise in the twenties and the Japanese were invading countries from the early thirties. Their shenanigans continued for nearly twenty years. And you think FDR fixed it all in less than four or five? And FDRs innaction for so long allowed the deaths of millions of innocents before he finally did anything about it. I don't understand where you are comming from with this. Other than you favor democrats over republicans of course regardless of their real record as president.

Answer 4

FDR was fighting a conventional war with well defined sides and territory. Terrorists don't hold allegiance to any one country and easily blend in with the population. Driving down streets in Baghdad you can't tell Iraqi from Insurgent. Part of what makes terrorism so dangerous is this fact. When we were fighting the Nazis it was pretty simple. Take over territory, cut of supply lines, suround troops, break lines etc. There are no front lines or armies to capture in this war. Terrorists are funded through back channels and get supplied through the black market.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if this were a conventional war our military would've won already.

Answer 5

In WWII, we killed 3.5 million German soldiers and 700,000 to 2 million civilians, depending on the data source. For Japan, the civilian casualties were much lower since all we did was nuke two of their cities, and fire bomb several more, not actually invade the mainland. We killed 1.75 - 2 million Japanese soldiers and under a million civilians.


So, in Germany we killed one civilian for every two to five soldiers we killed. Furthermore, we killed between 5 to 7% of their entire population of 78 million and around 3% of Japan's population. So, we would need to kill 800,000 to 1.8 million Iraqis to have comparable casualties.


Based on the WWII model, To definitively subdue a group of 25 million people, one should go out and kill 1 million or so of them, one fifth to one third of them civilians -- which we could pretty easily do any time we wanted to. But, because we believe that to be immoral, and I agree that it is, we are not doing that. So, it's probably going to take a lot longer to subdue these abusers. And they may end up killing that many of themselves before all this is over.

Answer 6

Well, FDR had the whole country behind him, GWB has 78% of the country against him. FDR had millions of troops to work with, GWB has 150k. FDR had clearly defined enemies and a declaration of war, GWB has shadowy terrorists and a shakey mandate from Congress. FDR had the cooperation of the media, GWB has the cooperation of one network and AM radio. FDR had powerful allies, including the Soviety Union, GWB has Brittain. FDR's America accepted hundreds of thousands of casualties and remained resolved to win, GWB's America sees 3000 casualties and wants to give up.

And, finally, FDR dropped the atomic bomb on the enemy that attacked American soil, twice!

Answer 7

FDR did not have to contend with the communist ideology of the left that exists today , the Democrat party of that day and Republican party of that day and age were more concerned with the good of and the survival of this country than those parties of today , today sadly it's more whats in it for me and how much power can I grab ?. Both parties are guilty of this but I'd say a bit more so on the left side .

Answer 8

1) Guess you didn't know Russia lost over 10,000 soldiers a day fighting in Germany near the end of the war.

2) Iraq has unconventional warfare (guerrilla warfare) where the enemy soldiers (insurgents) are too chicken to wear uniforms. The lack of uniforms is the reason why they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

China's revolutionist and mass murderer Mao said "guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.".

Answer 9

I had no idea that FDR completed the WWII and rebuild Europe within a shorter time span than overthrowing Iraq and rebuilding had taken. I had always thought he died before WWII ended, and passed on the completion of the war and rebuilding and stabilization of Europe to Truman, and Eisenhower, and if you count the cold war JFK and beyond.

Answer 10

Because FDR didn't have to fight a nice war. The allies had the advantage of being able to engage in total war, without having to worry about outrage over killing people trying to kill us. Plus, he had control of the media. They printed stories about all the successes in the war and none of the bad, instead of all the bad stories being printed with none of the good that is prevelant in the modern press. Thereby having the backing of the people.