as to why the liberal argument that" WW2 only took 4 years to win " as if there is some comparison to our war on terror. I recently read it was a line in the new movie Lambs to Lions. I personally would think the fact that 400,000 americans were killed winning that war would shine a little light on the reality of the situation we are in now, 3100 + combat deaths in 4 years.
2007-10-22 13:47:42 · 10 answers · asked by wiliemom 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is no parallel between WWII and the War on Terror.
No specific country, no vital specific targets, no front and no uniformed and organized enemy. It is a war against a fanatical ideology of hatred, blood lust and domination.
There is a definite historical significance and lesson here, though - when the world sat on the sidelines and allowed an ideology of hatred and domination to fester and grow, the final solution cost an estimated 62 million deaths in WWII.
Better to nip it in the bud, eh?
2007-10-22 14:09:33 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Two totally different types of conflict. During the Second World War, the United States was nearly 100% mobilized for the war. The American military was the largest it had ever been or since. The Second World War was a largely conventional conflict, which creates much higher casualties.
2007-10-23 00:14:54 · answer #2 · answered by wichitaor1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You need to understand that anti-war liberals will use any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to criticize this war. WW2 only took four years of US involvment to win, but that was because it was a conventional war with a known enemy. Look at Vietnam, it lasted almost 15 years (counting Kennedy's administration, yes we were fighting then), and the war still wasnt even over, even though we killed over one million communists. Basically, dont listen to that particular argument.
2007-10-22 21:21:14 · answer #3 · answered by cwaldman15 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Number-crunching doesn't work, either. The fact is that this is fourth-generation war, and WW II was a mix of second- and third-generation. This kind of war is always much longer, and the older style more organized. There's just no simple comparison, and thinking simplistically gets you nowhere fast.
2007-10-22 21:07:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very simple, WWII was a war with many many countries united, majority on our side.
This war in Iraq is just “US” with a few other countries sending in token troops. Yes the UK has a few but nothing compared to us and they have been getting out and doing less.
So do you think that perhaps we are doing something that is just a little on the troubling side of things if all the other countries in this world see things just a little different then our President, think about it?
2007-10-22 21:12:34 · answer #5 · answered by Ghias and Beagles 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
WW2 was a direct war against specific enemies that had a central base of operations -- it was a war against nations, and direct force was useful and usable.
The "war on terror" is a marketing phrase -- it has no real meaning, because it's meaningless to declare war on a concept or a tactic.
Even if you interpret it to mean a war against all those who use terrorism -- you're talking about hundreds if not thousands of individual groups -- scatted all over the world -- with no central command structure, no single base of operations, no military hierarchy and no real pressure points to attack.
The war in Iraq isn't even related to the "war on terror" -- the US occupation of Iraq is based on our sense of guilt for having caused Iraq to fall into a civil war -- and us wanting to stay and babysit until they get their act together -- but we're not one of the sides in that civil war.
Even if we were -- the same problem applies -- the "insurgents" are not a single unified enemy force with a central leader who can surrender for all of them -- they are dozens or hundreds of individual groups, each fighting for control over their own territories.
You cannot compare one type of warfare to the other -- it's like trying to use the tactics learned fighting elephants to attack a swarm of bees.
2007-10-22 21:21:40 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For starters, the current US Military doesn't consist of several million men organized around 60 year old tactics and equipment, fighting purely conventional wars against an enemy that's technologically on par.
Proportion, mate. Take things into proportion.
2007-10-22 20:54:20 · answer #7 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
WWII raged on for years before we ever got into it! It took us four years to "win" by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! 400,000 lives were lost on how many fronts in hand to hand combat and how many were deployed? The answer...too many! We live in a world of "smart bombs" today and haven't engaged in real hand to hand combat since then. Not in Viet Nam where we faced the "faceless" enemy in guerrilla warfare and not here in Iraq. It's really apples and oranges!
2007-10-22 21:01:36 · answer #8 · answered by Chris B 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Commander-in-Chief in WW2 was a liberal lion... and thank God for that...If neo-cons were at the helm in those days we might be speaking German today!!!
2007-10-22 21:01:34 · answer #9 · answered by Fern O 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hahaha he quoted from a movie!? lol no wonder what they talk about sounds so farout it comes from bloody movies hahahaha
2007-10-22 20:52:13 · answer #10 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋