Nope. Never said that. I’m simply comparing US losses over comparable time frames in each war. 300,000 (or whatever) KIA over 3.5 years in WWII…versus 1,800 (or so) over 2.5 years in Iraq. (By the way, I don’t necessarily agree with the “3.5 years” for WWII…I’m simply using what the OP listed).
Sorry. Thought I had changed ‘year’ to ‘war’ in time. Oops.
You don’t see that you are comparing apples and oranges? Hell, not even apples and oranges - you’re comparing apples and bathtubs.
Um. I’m comparing US military losses in each war. The OP has no problem comparing how long each conflict lasted. I don’t see why it’s “apples and bathtubs” to take a look at how many US soldiers lost their lives over roughly the same amount of time.
The actual numbers for WWII are irrelevant. What stephe96 should find embarrassing is the comparison of the invasion of Iraq to WWII, as if the lower number of casualties in Iraq somehow proves that Bush is running his war better than FDR did.
That was that pinko, commie sympathiser Eisenhower’s fault. He stopped our main forces, Gen. Simpson’s 9th and Gen. Hodges 1st Armies short of Berlin and allowed the Soviets to take it. And they couldn’t get there in time because the lousy commies can’t pour piss out of a boot. 
Are you kidding? I’m responding to a thread that compares the two wars in the title. Give me a break.
Yeah, they’re ‘irrelevant’ now that you’ve been shown to be wrong. Funny how they were very relevant when you thought I was embarrassing myself, huh?
The OP is comparing the length of time it is taking to defeat an Iraqi insurgency to the length of time it took to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, et. al. Obviously, a smaller theatre of operations is going to have fewer casualties. Equally obviously, a smaller theatre of operations should have been settled by the greatest military power in the world by now.
Note from the OP - My intent for the thread title was not to directly compare the Iraq War with WWII.
I just think it’s interesting that we fought and won WWII in only 3.5 years. And now, here we are at nearly 2.5 years for Iraq. We are still being attacked and have no control over the country. Can we do better? When will Bush be held accountable?
People routinely want my threads banished to the pit. I’ll try to explain myself in black and white next time and tone it down. 
Always assuming that military action is the correct means to arrive at the settlement of a problem that was partly generated by miltary action.
I did not provide that link to correct numbers. I provided that link to allow you to educate yourself on the difference in scale of WWII and the invasion of Iraq, a country about twice as big as Idaho. I must admit, I’m not sure Idaho is pacified either.
You know, I can’t say I find that countering one irrelevant comparison by posing another irrelevant comparison makes for a very compelling argument.
Neither of you are wrong, you’re just counting exclusively battle deaths and his linked figure includes non-combat deaths. About 400K American servicemen died during the war, and another 671K were wounded.
Aside from the fact that WW2 lasted for 6 years (Sept 39 to Aug 45), the Russians, British, Canadians, Australians, Indians, etc. had a lot to do with the victory as well.
Airman, I know that we don’t often see eye-to-eye on political matters, but, having said that, I’ve come to appreciate your innate willingness to change your mind when presented with logical arguments. In short, you are one of the very few conservatives here whose original stand vis-a-vis this Fool’s War, has morphed over time based on the strenght of the facts presented.
With that in mind, perchance you’d be willing to take a few minutes of your time in order to read the following article, for I think it does a bang-up job of refuting the overall tenor of your expressed position on this thread.
So, if you would, without further ado, please read the article and let me/us know what you think of same.
It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too
Teaser vis-a-vis the Fallujah situation you alluded to earlier:
Look forward to your response. Thanks in advance.
~Red
Look. I have no objection to people who object to the war, and I respect your opinion and your right to have a different opinion, but can you please pick someone other than Howard Zinn to cite in the future?
This man lacks a sense of perspective. Adolf Hitler got six years of blowjobs before Europe went all in, and when they did it took six years to beat him. Nonviolent resistance? This guy is from Fantasyland.
As a result, I find that he has a credibility issue, in the same way that President Bush has a credibility issue. Sorry.
Dealing only with Germany - the Japanese experience was different.
-
One week of heavy bombing is unlikely to produce the same result as the sustained efforts and privations of WWII. The grinding attrition on both fronts probably dissuaded most German soldiers from any attempt at unconventional warfare. The assumption that instantaneous brutality would have converted the lot of them into docile democrats is foolish.
-
The allies signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1991. 1991-1939 =52 years. Obviously this is an absurd number, but so is the assumption that we were done with WWII in mid-1945.
-
The occupation levels bear no comparison. To occupy the US zone of Austria, two divisions plus lower echelon units were initially used - call it roughly 30,000 troops (a cut of over 50% from the initial planning). So, to police the one quarter of Austria (a country 1/4 the population nd 1/5 the area of Iraq) the US used about 1/5 the troops as in iraq - or about 4 times as many per capita/per sq mile. (http://www.usfava.com/USFA_History1.htm and cia factbook)
-
The occupation of Germany took the approach of making sure, at least at first, that the occupation was highly visible, with a whole lot of troops. By the end of 1946 the target occupation level was about 340,000 troops (drawing down from a visible 5 times that number). And again, this is to occupy the quarter of Germany that was the US’s responsibility. THe US zone was populated with (crudely) maybe equivalent to 3/4 of Iraq’s population and 1/5 of Iraq’s area. JUST FOR OCCUPATION, not to fight the Soviets. (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch18.htm#b1 ) So soldiers per capita 3x as many, soldiers per sq. mile 15? times as many?
-
WWII post-war occupations were planned ahead of time, with contingencies for the possibility that the enemy might collapse more rapidly than anticipated.
I think it’s interesting that you continue to believe World War II only last three and a half years.
Just because the USA didn’t join until late in the game does not mean the Axis were beaten in just 3.5 years.
Let’s at least get the numbers straight; it took just under SIX years to beat Germany, not three and a half. The U.S. just didn’t get into the lineup until almost halfway through.
I how long WWII officially lasted (Sep 1939 to Aug 1945). You could even say that it started in 1937 in China, and that the occupation ended many years after 1945.
I’m talking about US involvement (Dec 1941 to Aug 1945).