During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?
During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?
Last edited by Aenlic; 11-27-2006 at 22:35.
"Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)
Bad.
We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.
Side Note:
Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.
However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I agree- it's not a good metric. Those days don't include the occupation. But, I also agree with your answer.Originally Posted by Vladimir
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
A valid point about the occupations afterwards. But that was after the war ended. This one hasn't ended yet. We haven't occupied Iraq; we're still in the process of trying to occupy Iraq.![]()
"Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)
Actually I feel America occupied Iraq, then ****** off the locals, restarting the war.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Strike, you pinpoint the issue very neatly. Iran has always had more clout in the region than you do.Originally Posted by Strike For The South
For a time, US administrations supported the brutal Shah in Iran to keep some influence with the acknowledged regional power, and then changed to the even more brutal Saddam Hussein when the Iranians went all independent on you. Encouraged the latter to start a brutal war against the Iranians - and then when he got the inevitable delusions of grandeur and invaded a country whose autocrat you still liked, he got crossed off the Christmas card list.
The delusions then spread and the US thought it could directly influence the region to its own standards and marginalise Iran.
You won't make a stable peace in the region without accepting Iran's regional role and working with them.
Or re-instating Saddam...![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
I don't really get the comparison. Didn't we lose like 200,000 men in WWII? And 600,000 in the civil war?
Also, the revolutionary war was 7 years long.
A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
*conspiratorial grin with France*
What about an 800 year long insurrection?Originally Posted by BDC
![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
What about setting up the monarchy that oppressed three disparate cultures that Hussein overthrew? Reference your previous post and British involvement in the creation of Iraq.Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk.Originally Posted by BDC
Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war.![]()
How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
"A man's dying is more his survivor's affair than his own."
C.S. Lewis
"So many people tiptoe through life, so carefully, to arrive, safely, at death."
Jermaine Evans
Are you implying they ever had a chance???Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
![]()
We germans prefer it fast, having a war last for a century just shows you're too weak to win it.![]()
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?
Well, you can trace Swedish-Danish rivalry from about 900 A.D and it lasted a good bit into the 1800, although that brotherhood thingy ruined that fine rivalry.Originally Posted by Pannonian
![]()
And the Swedish-Russian rivalry is from about 860 to the end of the cold war and the relations still isn't warm, but that falls outside that roughly equal power thingy.
And in my days, we restarted conflicts to make them last another 20 years of constant warfare (not some silly rests here and there you old gitsOriginally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
) and causing devastation not seen in Europe until about 300 years later. And we couldn't have peace either, it was way too expensive.
But I agree on these upstarts though old friend, no lack spine and conviction in the youth nowadays.![]()
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!
As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.
If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either.
Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
"Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)
I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.Originally Posted by Aenlic
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.
Peace in Europe will never stay, because I play Medieval II Total War every day. ~YesDachi
I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'independent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'Originally Posted by Aenlic
Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.
Last edited by Papewaio; 11-29-2006 at 23:35.
Eh?Originally Posted by Vladimir
![]()
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
You know, I was just going to let the "ignorance" comment pass. Then I saw the last paragraph.Originally Posted by yesdachi
You must not be in the military. In fact, I'm guessing that you've never been in the military. If you have, then you're a complete dolt.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me)![]()
Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers. Tell that to the nearly 30,000 permanently maimed US soldiers and their families. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost similarly. Not that big a deal? What a completely idiotic statement. I'm a disabled vet, sport. And as of now, your opinion doesn't mean spit. March your pointless ass down to the nearest recruiter. Until then, you don't have anything of interest to add.
"Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)
Like the ones you can't handle?I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
![]()
Cataphract Of The City
Hey,
"I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,
"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.
And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.
Bush standing on an aircraft carrier deck with his flight suit crotch strap still buckled in front of a big sign saying "mission accomplished" does not mean that the war ended. The war is still in progress. We're still fighting ex-Ba'athists, probably many of them ex-Iraqi army vets, in the streets. We're also now fighting extremists of various sects as well as members of the old Iraqi military. A "new" government, ineffective as it is, is not the same thing as ending the war either. We're still effectively at war. The fact that more soldiers have died or been wounded on an average monthly basis than before Bush declared the war over is an indication. We're more at war now than we were when we first invaded.Originally Posted by Papewaio
In Japan and Germany, both signed capitulations. The occupations afterwards were peaceful (excepting a few cases). There is no peace in Iraq. It's still war. It's been war every day since we invaded. Doesn't there have to be some kind of peace before one can claim the war is over? There hasn't been any in Iraq yet.
Do we say of the Russian war in Afghanistan that the war was only the initial invasion and the rest was just an "occupation"? No. We call the entire period that the Russians fought in Afghhanistan, from the initial invasion and takeover of the country to their final pullout - a war.
For that matter, we're still at war in Afghanistan too. In fact, several villages are under the control of the Taliban - almost 5 years later.
There wasn't any period of peace to justify saying the war was over. In Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, we're still in the process of invading and occupying. That means we're still at war, status of whatever puppet "government" we've installed not withstanding.![]()
"Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)
No longer valid post.
Requesting suggestions for new sig.
![]()
-><-
![]()
![]()
![]()
GOGOGO
GOGOGO WINLAND
WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And that makes it a very very low intensity war compared with WWII.Originally Posted by Aenlic
Omaha beach on the first day of the Normandy landings amounted for over 3000 losses and a thousand American dead. A total of 407,300 military deaths occurred to the US in WWII... which given the population level of 132,000,000 means that Iraq would have to have generated 926,653 deaths to be on par with WWII in intensity.
So WWII was 300 times more deadly then the Iraq war and occupation... the money that is creating such a huge deficit and fighting an opponent far below the tech and numbers curve are responsible for this.
I think this debt will be rectified far before the men and women who survived ,because of the money spent on them, will become grandparents.
We're not at war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't seem to recall Congress ever declaring war on either of those two countries.![]()
Without a war, how can we have a victory?
The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions
If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat
"Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur
Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
As for me, I keep myself away from IraqWarLow-Intensity Conflict threads just as much as I keep myself away from Iraq.
I believe he was concurring with Aenlic.Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Requesting suggestions for new sig.
![]()
-><-
![]()
![]()
![]()
GOGOGO
GOGOGO WINLAND
WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bookmarks