Why do Cons compare Iraq US dead to WW2 US dead? WW2 was justified, Iraq was not.?

Question

We cannot be winning just because there are "ONLY" 4,000 Amercians killed. ONE was to many in this disaster created by George Bush.

Ans to Bill: "A Patriot"

Answer 1

How was WWII justified? We went into that was to free Poland from the Germans, then let them be captured by the Russians.

It can be claimed that we lost WWII.

Answer 2

Why do the Democrats and liberals keep comparing the Iraq US dead to those killed in Vietnam? We are not winning based on the deaths of our troops; we are winning because the surge, much to the dismay of the left, is working. Just ask Rep. John Murtha (D) Pa, he finally admitted that the surge is working and even Hillary and the other leftleaning presidential candidates are rethinking their strategies based on the success of the surge. Your statement is all too ironic... you say we can't be winning based on deaths, but you will stand up and say we are losing for the same factor, the deaths of US troops. By the way, I have 2 tours in Iraq under my belt and we are making great progress, despite the main stream media and ultra left liberal lies. Futhermore, claiming to be a patriot does not qualify you to determine what is and is not justifiable when it comes to a war. As always, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep this in mind... everyone has an opinion and most of them suck, including yours.

NOTE: Gary F. Thanks for the laugh. It's totally funny how you quote Bush Sr as saying the Iraq war was stupid and doomed 5 years before it happened and 2 years before his son was even in office. What are you smoking?

Answer 3

I think the comparison makes no sense. Although I'm not 100% sure that WWII was justified. I mean the US intervention, the war was not justified.

The measure of winning or loosing is relative. You have to establish first what's your goal. If you achieve it, you win. Then you can evaluate efficiency. Compare results obtained with resource used and draw your conclusion. It's not easy. A general may think that a hundred thousands lives is a cheap price for a hill while you looking at the same hill may think it was a huge waste.

It's all a matter of perspective. What did you get from the war so far? What did you loose? Was it worth it?

Answer 4

Not to mention the fact that Roosevelt had to drag the kicking-and-screaming Cons into the war because they didn’t want to lose the good business deals they had going with Hitler.

=====

dr_law2003 ---

Invading Iraq was a stupid idea doomed to failure. Every non-partisan Middle East expert in the world predicted that the most likely outcome of invading Iraq would be a civil war and regional destabilization. Actually, anyone with the slightest real knowledge of the region knew this to be true.

The President’s own father knew it and said so in his 1998 book, ‘A World Transformed’.

Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) told Dubya, “If you break it [Iraq], then you own it”.

The first Gulf War commander "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf knew it, saying that if America invaded Iraq it would be a, “dinosaur in a tar pit”.

Hell, even Dick Cheney had said it would become a quagmire.

Recent reports by the US Department of State and a consensus of America’s 16 Intelligence Agencies both conclude that America's presence in Iraq: is only making the situation there worse; has made Americans less safe and less secure than they were before 9/11; and has made anti-American terrorist organizations larger, stronger, and more successful than ever.

==========

dr_law2003 --- --

Bush Sr., was, of course, speaking in terms of the First Gulf War, but the situation was identical in 2003 as is was 10 years earlier. And, he was as right as his son is wrong.

Had the nitwit only read Chapter 19 of papa’s book, we would not be in this mess:

“We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.”

=========

And as everyone knows, there was no cause to invade Iraq.

According to the (then Republican dominated) Congressional 9/11 and Pre-war Intelligence reports:

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded;

2. Hussein did not allow terrorist training camps;

3. Hussein hated al Qaeda before we did;

4. Hussein did not hide al-Zarqawi; he tried to have him arrested; and of course

5. No WMDs or involvement with 9/11.

========

And things are only going to get worse. The Kurds are toast. Turkey will never allow even a quasi Kurdish state on its border, and the only thing that might unite the S’hia and Sunni is a temporary alliance to kill the Kurds and reclaim the northern oil fields. Syria and Iran also have their own issues with the Kurds. Ultimately, Bush may be held accountable for the deaths of millions of Americans.

Answer 5

This war in Iraq has already been a longer involvement (militarily speaking only, lend lease already had us involved before Pearl Harbor) than WW11. This is not something the Bush Administration likes to bring up. Bush did not want to compare Iraq with Vietnam before it became convenient to do so. Now, he has used the analogy that if we pull out we will have the same results as we did in Vietam. Of course, Vietnam today is becoming more and more capitalistic. They make shoes for Nike. Our world did not fall apart when the communists took over and it won't if we leave Iraq and let its people decide things.

Answer 6

this trouble-free so talked approximately as good judgment is thoroughly fake we did no longer help France because of the fact of their helping us We freed them because of the fact Germany declared conflict on us in WW2 and France replaced into the place the Germans have been. In WW1 we fought because of the fact the Germans resumed unrestricted submarine war and had proposed to assist the Mexicans to invade the southwest of united states of america. What your talking approximately is a delusion. The French knew from previous adventure what replaced into going to ensue and tried to make us see experience yet NOOOO we've been arrogant previous degree and knew proper properly lots for that theory. who's the sorry one now?

Answer 7

I do not compare. Then again I do not consider liberal or conservative dirty words. I also do not look at people with opposing views as enemies. But then you are probably not overly concerned that utilizing generalized comments of any group of people is rather senseless.

Your right tho, we cannot be winning just because there are only 4000 Americans killed. We are winning because 'Real' Americans are standing their ground, not backing down and are going to see this through.

Answer 8

If you think and really honestly believe Iraq wqas not justified, with out any hate or malicious I must say you are not smart enough to be here. Please try getting better educated about what led up to the war and world politics in the last century beofre you come back and admit you screwed up with this question.

Answer 9

If you studied what Roosevelt knew before Pearl Harbor, you would know that the US involvement in WWII was not only avoidable but unnecessary. You should study history by doing your own research and not believing what they taught you in the 4th grade. History in the USA is taught in a way to make the government and the people feel good about themselves. If you believe what you were taught in school, every war, skirmish, fight, occupation, government rebellion started by the USA is and was justified. History classes in the USA are like one giant propaganda machine. Ask any native American, or any one else that studied history on their own, or in some other country. WWII was not justified.

Answer 10

I think a lot of people do simply because of one thing. Many who do not support the war say we should leave simply because of causalities, nothing else. Casualties during a war is a weak indicator of winning or losing a battle.