It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Troops have fought in Iraq for longer than WW2

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
US Milestone In Iraq, but not a pretty one.
American troops have now been embroiled in Iraq for longer than than their forefathers were fighting in World War II.

Compared to Vietnam, which was 1961-75, 14 years of fighting, how long will this current fighting last?

Its hard to define this war, war on terrorism, civil war, war for oil??


Some news organisations are debating the use of the phrase 'civil war' for the conflict - the White House rejects it.




news.sky.com...

But i suppose the main question is, how long will this continue for?




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Only because WWII wasn't an attempt to make war "politically correct."

The U.S. and its allies pulled no punches in WWII up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

Plus the ideologies driving both the Germans and the Japanese were much more easily overturned than Islam.

[edit on 11/29/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Only because WWII wasn't an attempt to make war "politically correct."


You are completely wrong. The majority of European countries wanted to be liberated and the liberation simultaneously improved the living conditions. Allied forces won the heart and minds of people, while most Iraqis are currently living in worse conditions than before the invasion, which is the only explanation for insurgency and why the US is never going to win this war.

In addition, most allied forces fought World War II politically correct, warfare and tactics have changed and the Germans were capable of offering resistance. If Saddam had Abrams tanks and a modern army you would you have seen major tank battles as well like they occured in World War II.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Win the war?

We have done that - Saddam is gone - Army disbanded. We WON the war. What we didn't do is stabilize the country.

You can't blame the U.S. for the civil war. Those people have deep rooted issues that cannot be fixed with diplomacy. Iraq is 300 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to how people think in terms of religion. I am an athiest, my neighbor is LDS, should I go execute him? Or maybe the guy across the street who is into creationism.

A larger group of people is seeking revenge on a smaller group of people for being repressed, exploited, tortured, etc while under the Saddam rule. They hate each other, Iran ans Syria are fueling the fire.

Also, the U.S. Army isn't really fighting, they are more sitting around waiting to be attacked - so...

As for the time frame, well we lost over 407,300 troops in WWII and about 50,000 in Vietnam. Iraq's death toll is significantly smaller in terms of U.S. military casualties.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by crisko]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Win the war?

We have done that

I don't find it so easy to judge this "victory".

What was the objective?
Wasn't it to "liberate the Iraqi people"?
You can hardly claim that goal has been met.

Was it to remove the WMD in Iraq?
If that's the case, victory was attained before the war started.

Was it to prevent the threat of Iraqi breed terrorists?
Things have only gotten worse in those terms. Many more people (in Iraq and around the world) harbor resentment and hostility towards the US than before the war started.

Was it simply to remove Saddam from power?
Well, that got done, but the serious dying didn't even start until after the man was captured. A very strong argument can be put forward that Saddam was the only thing keeping Iraq from spiralling into a degenorate nation of disorder that makes for the perfect breeding ground for Terrorists.

Was it to seize Iraqi oil assets and establish a new foothold in the MiddleEast?
Ah ha! Mission acomplished!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko

We have done that - Saddam is gone - Army disbanded. We WON the war. What we didn't do is stabilize the country.



the war in iraq is called 'operation iraqi freedom' dropping bombs down smashing things up is the easy part, putting a country on the verge of a civil war is not 'freeing' a country, therefore the war carrys on as mission isn't accomplished.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The objective? Iran Iran Iran, even Sergei Lavrov is today backing sanctions against EyeraaaaaaaaaaaaanbutIcouldn'thidefromthepowersthatbe



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
No war is easy. Look at the Phillipine-American war. Lasted for years before the insurgency was put down. Thousands of casualties on the American side, but in the end won. Now these days we just pulled out based on politicians decision to pull out and not military defeat, but in my opinion thats still a victory for the enemy.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
A good thing to note because the US has always sold WWII as though they won it and in fact they entered it during the middle phase. Countries like England and Canada and Australia were long in that war before the US even entered it.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
A good thing to note because the US has always sold WWII as though they won it and in fact they entered it during the middle phase. Countries like England and Canada and Australia were long in that war before the US even entered it.



2-3 years was barely, "long before they entered"

I get pretty sick and tired of the brits trying to play down the role the US played. Fact is that if it wasnt for us, the brits would be speaking german or russian right now.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
2-3 years was barely, "long before they entered"

I get pretty sick and tired of the brits trying to play down the role the US played. Fact is that if it wasnt for us, the brits would be speaking german or russian right now.

Yeah and vice versa, unless you where planning on launching operation overlord from the north atlantic?
2-3 years of constant fighting is a LONG time, but lets not turn this into a WW2 argument, we have enough of them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join