U.S. Involved in Iraq Longer Than WW II

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Well for Christ's sake, we toppled the freaking NAZIS faster than the home-grown insurgency in Iraq. Not only should Rumsfeld have lost his job, his various doctrines should be taught in military colleges nation-wide as an example of what NOT to do when seeking regime change in a foreign land.

Associated Press
U.S. Involved in Iraq Longer Than WW II
By TOM RAUM 11.25.06, 12:18 PM ET

The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in the war that President Bush's father fought in, World War II.

As of Sunday, the conflict in Iraq has raged for three years and just over eight months.

Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.


Fighting in Afghanistan, which may or may not be a full-fledged war depending on who is keeping track, has gone on for five years, one month. It continues as the ousted Taliban resurges and the central government is challenged.

Bush says he still is undecided whether to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq or add to the 140,000 there now.

He is awaiting the conclusions of several top-to-bottom studies, including a military review by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Expected soon, too, are recommendations from an outside blue-ribbon commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican close to the Bush family, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who was one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 commission.

The Iraq war began on March 19, 2003, with the U.S. bombing of Baghdad. On May 1, 2003, Bush famously declared major combat operations over, the pronouncement coming in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier emblazoned with a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Yet the fighting has dragged on, and most of the 2,800-plus U.S. military deaths have occurred after Bush suggested an end to what he called the Iraq front in the global fight against terrorism.

Politicians in both parties blame the increasingly unpopular war for GOP losses on Capitol Hill in the November elections that handed control of the House and Senate to Democrats.

Twice before in the last half-century have presidents - Harry S. Truman in Korea and Lyndon B. Johnson in Vietnam - been crippled politically by prolonged and unpopular wars.

Bush last week visited Vietnam for the first time, attending a summit of Asian and Pacific Rim nations. Asked if the Vietnam war held any messages for U.S. policy in Iraq, Bush said it showed that "we'll succeed unless we quit."

John Mueller, an Ohio State University political scientist who wrote the book "War, Presidents and Public Opinion," said Americans soured on Iraq after "doing a rough cost-benefit analysis. They say, `What's it worth to us and how much is it costing us?'"

By that standard, Americans were willing to abandon the Iraq war long before they turned against the war in Vietnam, Mueller suggested. "So that, for example, when more than 2,000 Americans had died in Iraq, support lowered. It took 20,000 deaths in Vietnam to lower support for that war to the same level," he said.

[...]

Forbes.com
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII. The political will to win also existed.
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
"The invasion & occupation of an innocent country will always result in disaster" - Man with one ounce of common sense
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.
Are you advocating this?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.
Are you advocating this?

But that's NOT the victory we want. We didn't want to defeat Iraq, we wanted to "FREE" Iraq. Our objective was different than in WWII, which was our first mistake. Our second mistake was not doing the things necessary to achieve that victory. This isn't some mystery, there were a lot of experts telling our leaders what to do to accomplish the mission...they just didn't do it, because landing Bush and his codpiece on an aircraft carrier sounded a lot easier.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII. The political will to win also existed.

Would you people stop whining about "the will to win"? Really, we'd all appreciate it.

Getting a country behind a war effort isn't a difficult task, you just need to give them a reason to support it. Our problem in Iraq is that Bush keeps saying we are making progress and that we need to stay the course, when we are clearly NOT making very good progress and a massive course change in necessary. I didn't say we have to leave, but a delusional commander in chief who thinks things are just peachy is not very motivational. It's hard to have the will to win when it doesn't seem like you have the ability to win, and the responsibility for that perception seems to largely rest with a President who believes in faith based war fighting.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII.

The political will to win also existed.

Originally posted by: daniel49
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.

Are you advocating this?

Oh come on, it was your heroes that started all this. :roll:
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford


But that's NOT the victory we want. We didn't want to defeat Iraq, we wanted to "FREE" Iraq. Our objective was different than in WWII, which was our first mistake. Our second mistake was not doing the things necessary to achieve that victory. This isn't some mystery, there were a lot of experts telling our leaders what to do to accomplish the mission...they just didn't do it, because landing Bush and his codpiece on an aircraft carrier sounded a lot easier.


I agree (except of the "codpiece" comment).. its either: "go big, go long, or go home"... because we are doing the "go long" option.. its taking us longer... another difference is the way we are handling the war.. since this is not an all out war, we are losing less people... about 3 thousand soldiers have been killed. In WW2, almost half a million soldiers died..

-Eleison
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
So let me get this straight...if Rumsfeld was out we would have already had a stable Iraq?

and this thought: Do you honestly think if we had anyone else in office our military would be able to somehow stop insurgents faster? Or is the current administration simply a scapegoat? Do you really think our boys and girls over there arent doing their absolute best? Nice opinion of our military huh?
 

Horus

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2003
2,838
1
0
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Rainsford


But that's NOT the victory we want. We didn't want to defeat Iraq, we wanted to "FREE" Iraq. Our objective was different than in WWII, which was our first mistake. Our second mistake was not doing the things necessary to achieve that victory. This isn't some mystery, there were a lot of experts telling our leaders what to do to accomplish the mission...they just didn't do it, because landing Bush and his codpiece on an aircraft carrier sounded a lot easier.


I agree (except of the "codpiece" comment).. its either: "go big, go long, or go home"... because we are doing the "go long" option.. its taking us longer... another difference is the way we are handling the war.. since this is not an all out war, we are losing less people... about 3 thousand soldiers have been killed. In WW2, almost half a million soldiers died..

-Eleison

That was also against two seperate, highly-dedicated forces that would rather die than surrender for the most part, who also had highly-advanced weapons. If the Iraqi people had the same resources that WW2 Germany or Japan had, you'd see a hell of a lot more deaths.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight...if Rumsfeld was out we would have already had a stable Iraq?

and this thought: Do you honestly think if we had anyone else in office our military would be able to somehow stop insurgents faster? Or is the current administration simply a scapegoat? Do you really think our boys and girls over there arent doing their absolute best? Nice opinion of our military huh?

It's pathetic when people like you attempt to turn criticism of the administration into criticism of the young men and women in Iraq who are just following orders so that you can claim that all critics hate the military. :roll:

It's an old trick, and people aren't buying it anymore. You need a newer edition of the RNC playbook. :disgust:
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Our problem in Iraq is that Bush keeps saying we are making progress and that we need to stay the course, when we are clearly NOT making very good progress and a massive course change in necessary.

Hey now, we've never been stay the course.

And the other problem is that the reasons for being there kept changing. WMD's, get Saddam, get the terrorists, bring democracy to Iraq. Take your pick.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,015
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII.

The political will to win also existed.

Originally posted by: daniel49
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.

Are you advocating this?

Oh come on, it was your heroes that started all this. :roll:


It was your heroes that gave the President the go ahead to do it. :roll:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight...if Rumsfeld was out we would have already had a stable Iraq?

and this thought: Do you honestly think if we had anyone else in office our military would be able to somehow stop insurgents faster? Or is the current administration simply a scapegoat? Do you really think our boys and girls over there arent doing their absolute best? Nice opinion of our military huh?

It's pathetic when people like you attempt to turn criticism of the administration into criticism of the young men and women in Iraq who are just following orders so that you can claim that all critics hate the military. :roll:

It's an old trick, and people aren't buying it anymore. You need a newer edition of the RNC playbook. :disgust:

Why would I need a new copy of the RNC playbook, when, as I've stated in previous posts, Im a Democrat?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight...if Rumsfeld was out we would have already had a stable Iraq?

and this thought: Do you honestly think if we had anyone else in office our military would be able to somehow stop insurgents faster? Or is the current administration simply a scapegoat? Do you really think our boys and girls over there arent doing their absolute best? Nice opinion of our military huh?

If we had someone else in office who didn't have obivious signs of corruption and gross negligence. Yes, things would be a lot better.

This a honest opinion backed up by a lot of facts.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
This is not quite true, actually it is totally false.

You could argue that WWII continued for more than four decades - the cold war was nothing but unfinished business stemming from WWII. Korea also had its birth in WWII. Not to mention the Communist takeover of China and the current issues with Taiwan.

Realistically, the 'war' in Iraq did end a few months after the fighting started. The occupation is another thing. Occupations typically take decades to be successful - and the fact is that there does not seem to be the will for this anymore. We occupied Japan for almost 20 years actively, and still have bases and troops there.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: irwincur
This is not quite true, actually it is totally false.

You could argue that WWII continued for more than four decades - the cold war was nothing but unfinished business stemming from WWII. Korea also had its birth in WWII. Not to mention the Communist takeover of China and the current issues with Taiwan.

Realistically, the 'war' in Iraq did end a few months after the fighting started. The occupation is another thing. Occupations typically take decades to be successful - and the fact is that there does not seem to be the will for this anymore. We occupied Japan for almost 20 years actively, and still have bases and troops there.

Oh come on dont cloud the argument with truth...tsk tsk
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: irwincur
This is not quite true, actually it is totally false.

You could argue that WWII continued for more than four decades - the cold war was nothing but unfinished business stemming from WWII. Korea also had its birth in WWII. Not to mention the Communist takeover of China and the current issues with Taiwan.

Realistically, the 'war' in Iraq did end a few months after the fighting started. The occupation is another thing. Occupations typically take decades to be successful - and the fact is that there does not seem to be the will for this anymore. We occupied Japan for almost 20 years actively, and still have bases and troops there.

Oh come on dont cloud the argument with truth...tsk tsk

The truth that WWII lasted 40 years??? How many historians and military scholars believe that? :laugh:

Here's the truth: we have been actively fighting an insurgency in Iraq for as long as we actively fought the armed forces of Nazi Germany and Japan.

Or maybe we've been fighting a 3rd world nation for 15 years now? 1991-2006
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: irwincur
This is not quite true, actually it is totally false.

You could argue that WWII continued for more than four decades - the cold war was nothing but unfinished business stemming from WWII. Korea also had its birth in WWII. Not to mention the Communist takeover of China and the current issues with Taiwan.

Realistically, the 'war' in Iraq did end a few months after the fighting started. The occupation is another thing. Occupations typically take decades to be successful - and the fact is that there does not seem to be the will for this anymore. We occupied Japan for almost 20 years actively, and still have bases and troops there.

Oh come on dont cloud the argument with truth...tsk tsk

You could also argue that there was no WWII. It was a continuation of WWI with the Germans responding to the cruelty imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles, without which Germany would have no desire to bring on Hitler who came to power mainly because he was seen as one who could exact revenge. Then WWI was a continuation of hostilities before then. It may be possible to conclude that Iraq is a result of the Punic Wars if you try.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
This is not quite true, actually it is totally false.

You could argue that WWII continued for more than four decades - the cold war was nothing but unfinished business stemming from WWII. Korea also had its birth in WWII. Not to mention the Communist takeover of China and the current issues with Taiwan.

Realistically, the 'war' in Iraq did end a few months after the fighting started. The occupation is another thing. Occupations typically take decades to be successful - and the fact is that there does not seem to be the will for this anymore. We occupied Japan for almost 20 years actively, and still have bases and troops there.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, because WWII and The Cold War are generally considered two totally separate wars. Plus, it's completely obvious that WWII was a war against fascist Nazis, whereas The Cold War was a war against Communism (or against a Democratic Capitalist nation, depending on which side you were on).

I can see how you'd confuse the two.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight...if Rumsfeld was out we would have already had a stable Iraq?

and this thought: Do you honestly think if we had anyone else in office our military would be able to somehow stop insurgents faster? Or is the current administration simply a scapegoat? Do you really think our boys and girls over there arent doing their absolute best? Nice opinion of our military huh?

I guess you sort of answered your own question. In a completely retarded way, but still...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII.

The political will to win also existed.

Originally posted by: daniel49
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.

Are you advocating this?

Oh come on, it was your heroes that started all this. :roll:

It was your heroes that gave the President the go ahead to do it. :roll:

Really, how old were you then, ten?
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There was also a defined enemy and target in WWII.

The political will to win also existed.

Originally posted by: daniel49
we could probably carpet bomb baghdad, to hell with the civilian population,and get the victory you want.

Are you advocating this?

Oh come on, it was your heroes that started all this. :roll:

You voted for Bush... didn't you? Good work Dave... your hero got us into this. :roll: