« Litvinenko Was Radiating Radiation - Literally | Main | Marie Claire Outrage »

Longer Than WWII

Ya gotta love Macranger. He has the perfect response to the media celebration (at least that is what it looked like to me on the morning "news" show I was watching) over the news that the conflict in Iraq has last longer than WWII.

First, WWII would have went on a lot longer if we hadn't nuked Japan. I guess that would be a solution, we could nuke Syria, Iran, North Korea, France, the offices of the Daily Kos and perhaps that might stop the war.
(Hat tip: Larwyn.) One thing I didn't see in the report I watched was even one comment about the number of casualties in Iraq compared to those in WWII. Since Iraq has been going on for longer now, surely there have been more casualties, right? Everyone knows the anwer to that one and that is why the media will not talk about it. This war is taking a long time because of the way we have chosen to fight it, and not even once have I heard a Hiroshima style solution on the table, so what the heck is the point of those in the media making the comparisons? But we all know the answer to that one, too, don't we?


Comments (36)

By this stage in WWII the I... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

By this stage in WWII the Italians and Germans were defeated, and Japan was on the verge of a complete collapse (with or without the bomb). In fact, the war was going well starting with the invasion of France and the victory at Midway.

As for Iraq, there is no end in sight.

Barney, did you even read w... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Barney, did you even read what Lorie wrote? (or do you just not care, as long as you can get your 2 cents in?) We're fighting this war differently. We're taking great pains to avoid inflicting civilian casualties in Iraq, one of the major reasons why this has gone on for so long.

In WWII, civilians were targets.

And by the way, there were many, many people who were moaning in WWII that there was "no end in sight."

b' goolge -thats because of... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

b' goolge -thats because of whimpy ass cowards like you setting behind their keyboard trying to undermind their own country every chance they get just because they got their liberal ass kicked not once but twice by a Texas "cowboy". Now stick that up your "nose". (wheee that was one long sentance)

jhow66, that TX Cowpie dest... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

jhow66, that TX Cowpie destroyed your beloved GOP. He took down Frist and Allen. Now you guys are down to a liberal Mayor of NY, and liberal Governor of MA (that Evangelicals wont vote for either) or McCain.

You lost the House and Senate and in two years you will loose The WH.

President Clinton and VP Obama!

In fact, the war was going ... (Below threshold)

In fact, the war was going well starting with the invasion of France and the victory at Midway.

As for Iraq, there is no end in sight.

Posted by: BarneyG2000


Going well? GOING WELL??? We lost over 400,000 soldiers and over 11,000 civilians, but it was going well? How stupid do you have to be to say that WWII was going well when we lost those kinds of Americans, and say Iraq is a quagmire that cannot be won, and it's worse than Vietnam (58,239 troops lost) when we have yet to lose 3,000 troops???

You've gone beyond Troll. . . and right into insane.

All this shows is the total... (Below threshold)
Lee:

All this shows is the total ineptitude of the current administration and its attempts to bring democracy to Iraq.

And any body count that ignores the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi lives lost is pure crap -- yes, we've lost 3000 troops, but what of the Iraqis? Oh, they don't count. This underscores nicely the fact that the Republicans never gave a crap about the Iraqi people in the first place - and could care less about them now as well.

I like the comparison I read recently which contrasts the expenditures made by the insurgents in comparison with what is being spent by the U.S. The estimated annual costs for the insurgent's efforts equals the expenditures made by the U.S. in one day of fighting.

The clueless morons in Washington botched this job, big time.

Comparisons such as length ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Comparisons such as length of time are bogus...our futle efforts in Viet Nam lasted much longer...
perhaps the only valid comparison might be in WWII we had a focus that remained the same..no one can with reason say this about Iraq...
As for the Texan kicking lib's ass twice..
Remember that Gore actually had the the most votes..and was elected by a 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court...in 2004 Kerry rightfully lost but by what around 4%?
..if those small margins constitute "kicking ass"
than the small margins that voters gave Dems in the House and Senate mean they "kicked ass"..
Kicking Ass is what Ronald R., Dick Nixon, and LBJ did...now those were ass kickings..

..the reality is that post-invasion plans for Iraq were and remain ill-conceived...
..our failures in Iraq must never be blamed on the troops. Their courage and abilities have continued without pause...
....the excuse that things would get significantly worse if we leave apply less and less each day..

If you're looking for the "... (Below threshold)
cirby:

If you're looking for the "start" of WWII, you really need to look to the invasion of Manchuria by Japan in 1931, and if you're looking for the "end" of WWII, it has to go to the end of the official occupation of Germany in about 1952. For US involvement, you also need to consider the Flying Tigers in China...

Then, of course, you need to add on the 50+ year occupation (still ongoing) of Germany by the US (to protect it from one of the initial aggressors of WWII, the Soviet Union/Russia).

I posted this on a similar ... (Below threshold)
Dan:

I posted this on a similar thread farther down, but it bears repeating. This statistic is meaningless. As Lorie notes, you don't see the media making comparisons between the fatality counts of Iraq and WWII. Why? Because it would take 519.5 years for the count in Iraq to equal the WWII count. (Details here.)

This is a ridiculous use of statistics.

And, Barney, perhaps you ar... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

And, Barney, perhaps you are unaware that the closer we got to Japan, the bloodier things got. We bombed the crap out of Japan, incinerating their cities (before we even used the big bombs). The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were terribly bloody and were mere tasters of what was to come in the pending invasion of the Japanese homeland.

"Going well" indeed.

The biggest reason why we won the Second World War is because we fought total war, where everyone and everything was a legitimate target. In Iraq, we've been fighting on eggshells since the beginning, because we don't want massive civilian casualities. We only seek to kill the enemey, not everyone.

It is folly to compare the length of time between the two wars. It's folly, in fact, to compare the length of time between ANY wars. It displays a massive ignorance of history and the military, and lays bare the usual, tiresome hatred the left has for Bush.

The body count compaison is... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

The body count compaison is not logical..WWII was made up of major battles between very large armies...Korea the same...in Viet Nam major battles were fought with the NVA and the Cong...

Such a comparison would mean Oklahoma City was not a terrorist attack because the number killed was lees than 10% of NYC..

It should also be noted that the number of killed in Iraq have been limited by the body armor they wear... and the amazing medical expertise and technology...

Big Mo, "The biggest reason... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Big Mo, "The biggest reason why we won the Second World War is because we fought total war"

Wrong!

We won because we were fighting a rightest war. We were attacked (by Japan) and Germany declared war on us.

Our leaders didn't have to lie and deceive us into a war.

We won because we had a clear goal, and competent leadership and allies that trusted and believed in the mission.

We have none of this in Iraq.

World War 2 started for the... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

World War 2 started for the U.S. on December 7, 1941 and ended on April 28, 1952, with the end of the occupation of Japan. That's over 10 years. The war with Saddam's Iraq lasted a few months, and we are now in the nation building stage just like we were in Japan.

By the end of 1945, more than 350,000 US personnel were stationed throughout Japan and some 47,000 US military personnel remain in Japan today.

The next time the U.S. finds that it needs to go to war the first targets should be the MSM. Had these professional whiners been around in 1941 the U.S. would have lost WW2.

The body count compaison... (Below threshold)
Dan:

The body count compaison is not logical..WWII was made up of major battles between very large armies.

Correct. That was my point. For the same reason, the time comparison is not logical.

Iraq != WWII. It's a different kind of war. It will take longer, but cost far less lives.

(As a parallel, WWII != Cold War. The Cold War cost more, but cost less live, took longer, etc.)

Barney, you can convince yo... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Barney, you can convince yourself that we won because we were fighting a "rightest" war, whatever the heck that is. But we won it, yes, because we had good leadership (no one can ever deny the terrific leadership of FDR, Ike, Marhall, King, etc), but also because we fought it totally. Just like we finally won the Civil War when Grant and Sherman fought it totally.

If we fought WWII like we're fighting Iraq--intensely concerned with civilian casualties and infrastructure--then we'd never would have won.

Of course, if we fought in Iraq like we did in WWII, then people like you would be screaming about civilian casualties. But then again, we'd probably already be out of there.

Still, the comparrison between length of time between the two wars is ridiculous.

Let's look at it another way: what's been going on since 2003 has been an attempt to stabelize the country with a new government--however right or wrong that is (I have misgivings). The actual war, the one to remove Saddam and his government, lasted a matter of weeks. So if you insist on comparing length of wars, the actual war--not the sad, messed-up aftermath--has been incredibly shorter than World War II.

BarneyG,You wrote:... (Below threshold)
ordi:

BarneyG,

You wrote: and liberal Governor of MA (that Evangelicals wont vote for either)

Sorry but you are not 100% correct.
Check this site out to see what I mean

Please, note I am not LDS nor do I belong to any church. Nor am I saying that all Evangelicals will vote for him. I just happened upon this site after reading your post.

BarneyG,Opps sorry... (Below threshold)
ordi:
Ordi, I did not mention his... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Ordi, I did not mention his faith. They wont vote for Mitt because he has flipped-flopped on abortion and his pro universal health care policy (not to mention that he belongs to cult). They wont vote for Guliani because he is pro choice, pro Homo and pro adultery (not to mention that he belongs to a cult (Catholic)).

So what 'b'google you still... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

So what 'b'google you still are a dumbass coward-as to osam bullcrap and bitch Clinton thats just wishfull thinking. (like to bet on that?)

I see old "pucker puss (lee lee) has crawled out of his hole again--uhhh "pucker" where was your love for the Iraq people when your buddy Saddanm was frying them in oil? huuuuu

nogo pisoff--uhhh if I remember right Bush was elected and is still the president for TWO MORE YEARS--can you say VETO--huuuu.

You poor old whinners still have not got over the fact that the Texas Cowboy beat old tree hugging insane Gore and that traitor from mASSholetosuch Hanio sKerry. Yeah we lost the past election but we are not crying in our beer like you poor slobbing libbies have been since 2000.When people with any common sense sees what your libbies in Washington will do in the next 2 years , we will be back in full force. It galls my ass to hear you bleeding heart asskissers put down our country just because you got your ass kicked (whether it be by ONE vote or ONE billion) 2 times in a row. Oh by the way, CAN YOU SAY VETO!!!!!!

OHHHH! Please BarneyG Don't... (Below threshold)
ordi:

OHHHH! Please BarneyG Don't make me laugh! You did mention his faith by writing this.

(that Evangelicals wont vote for either)

and don't say or pretend you didn't.

BarneyGAlso note I... (Below threshold)
ordi:

BarneyG

Also note I pointed you to a site that disproves what you said.

(that Evangelicals wont vote for either)

You choose to ignore my pointing out you were incorrect.

Why?

ordi, you're right, you saw... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

ordi, you're right, you saw through my snide remarks. I am sure that Evangelicals will have no problem voting for a candidate that is pro choice, or that is pro gay rights, or that cheated on his wife....

BarneyGBeing snide... (Below threshold)
ordi:

BarneyG

Being snide does NOT make you right! You are living proof of that. So go crawl back in your BIGOTED hole!

<a href="http://en.wikipedi... (Below threshold)
Darby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Casualties

I'd say that things are going pretty well in Iraq.

Assuming you're basing the comparison on pure numbers alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

So lets see here. A minor comparison. Based on numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_war_in_Iraq

So lets just use a very, very round number. Lets call Deaths in Iraq 600,000

So, out of Approximately 20,000,000 (Twenty Million), 600,000(Six hundred Thousand) have died. That's what? 3% of their population? My goodness. That's impressive. I think we've done fairly well in keeping the death rate down.

Compared to some of the countries in World War II...

Actually, if the US had had... (Below threshold)
jim:

Actually, if the US had had nuclear bombs when we were attacked on 9/11, er - excuse me - 12/7/42, then our parents and grandparents would have had a short war indeed. After all, historically the US used them as soon as we had them.

Japan might still not be habitable today, over 60 years later.

I suspect even Hitler would have negotiated at that point, up to and including resigning into exile.

So, are the detractors of the Administration suggesting that the US should have nuked Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden? And then, after nuking Afghanistan, threatening Hussein with more of the same with full intention of carrying out that threat?

It sure would have made for shorter involvement of our GIs. Fewer US Coalition casualties, yes.

Is that what they're suggesting? Did I miss that?

Um... not to nit pick... bu... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Um... not to nit pick... but the attack on Pearl Haror was on 12-7-41... not 42.

Carry on.

1941, yes, my bad.... (Below threshold)
jim:

1941, yes, my bad.

Hate typos like that. That is, if I'd typed 13/7/41, it'd have been an obvious error. It's like typos that are themselves valid words and impervious to spell check, especially ones like "spot" and "spit" with adjacent keys like 1 and 2.

Let me make sure I have thi... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Let me make sure I have this straight: First, we can compare the GWOT to WWII only in terms of length, but not to the similiarities in evil and inhumane ideology (Nazism to Islamofascism). Second, we can omit the fact that we faced large, highly organized armies who actually wore uniformsto show what side they were on and made it really clear as to whom the bad guys really were. And finally, we can forget the fact that the American media wasn't so self-serving and dared to be on the side of the good guys.

OK, I think I've got it now.

Let's see. Germany invaded... (Below threshold)

Let's see. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 marking the beginning of WWII and Japan officially surrendered on September 2, 1945. That makes WWII exactly six years and one day long. To date, the war in Iraq is 1345 days long. WWII lasted 2193 days.

Now I wasn't very good in math but according to my calculations, we have another 849 days till the war in Iraq is longer than WWII. That should occur on March 25, 2009.

Good luck with that Peter, ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Good luck with that Peter, it's difficult to follow rules that keep changing to support an already paper thin point.

Anyone want to take bets on what's the next "grim milestone"(tm)to be paraded in front of us to try and convince everyone to quit?

Regarding Lee:

And any body count that ignores the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi lives lost is pure crap -- yes, we've lost 3000 troops, but what of the Iraqis? Oh, they don't count. This underscores nicely the fact that the Republicans never gave a crap about the Iraqi people in the first place - and could care less about them now as well.

First, I think it should be noted that the whole comparison Barney made was slanted towards the impact on America, not the entire theatre of war...as was the response to it.

Second, if the Republicans didn't care about the Iraqi people, Lee...you would have seen a ghastly approach to this war. It would have involved just enough boots on the ground to hold laser pointers.

I like the comparison I read recently which contrasts the expenditures made by the insurgents in comparison with what is being spent by the U.S. The estimated annual costs for the insurgent's efforts equals the expenditures made by the U.S. in one day of fighting.

That is in no way indicative of failed planning (not to say is weren't failed plans).

I rather think it common sense to say that the insurgency spends a fraction of the cost to roll out of bed, pull some old artillery shells out of the closet and set them up on a roadside...whereas we're sending thousands of well-equipped soldiers and gear to a foreign land to fight.

Retreat!! Withdraw!! Surren... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Retreat!! Withdraw!! Surrender!! Whatever--just so we lose. And we get to blame it all on BusHitlerMcChimpyHaliburtonRoveCheney...

Sincerely,
The American Left

Heralder, I guess I should'... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Heralder, I guess I should've ended that post a "facetious/off" tag.

Yhe war between Islam and e... (Below threshold)
Billll:

Yhe war between Islam and everybody else has been going on for 1500 years now. President Jefferson built 2 big warships and lost one of them fighting it, so it's not like this just now started.
Oh, and the Europeans opposed our fighting them then, too. Some things never change.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!!... (Below threshold)
SGT Airborne:

YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!!
Let us not forget, WE WERE ATTACKED!!!
1.
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do, maybe wrong time in 199something! If I had it once I might have it again. Think not, who would use a NUC and not use it again if we needed to (we did).
Iraq had/has WMD, they gassed there own people after we left Iraq the first time...hmm (yea the "news" left that part out)
Iraq were buying nuclear peaces from France and other locations...hmm (US/GB/Israel bomb it into peaces)
Iraq could have moved it's nuclear equipment when they knew when we were coming (Lord knows they had enough time, oh and we gave them a time line then too), wait who has started up a nuclear program in the last few months/years...hmmm (IRAN did you fool)

2.
Lets think what goes on in the white house, do you really think they will tell us EVERYTHING that they know/knew. I am sure they have to keep some information withheld.
Bush is a great president, but not a good speaker! Look at 9/11, how soon did that happen into Bush's term and now look at Enron. Those dropped our economy and look at it now pushing past all time new highs. He can not even take credit for what he should get, just the negative stuff.
Clinton was the worst one we have had in decades.
This guy cared more about a BJ and his impeachment then he did about the US safty, Marines barracks getting bombed, USS Cole getting a 40 by 40 foot hole. Believe it or not Clinton really did have a chance to drop a bomb ol' Bin but did not do it.

3.
Do you REALLY care about how many Iraqis die, the Iraqis did a poll and they do not care about how many Americans die!! This is FYI only.

4.
To compare this war to WWII numbers or even the entire war(s) itself is insane because back then we could tell who was the enemy. Plus, the way we HAVE to fight this war, we took into consideration of bombing a factor that made bombs that was next to a school in WWII. What we do, we filled multiple plains with bombs and dropped them. Now, if we did that now then press would have our lunch. We fight with a ROE (Rules Of Engagement) that makes you think of a million of "what if things" before you can shoot this person that is carrying a weapon!

5.
I do not care what party wins as long as this Senate, House of Rep. and WH does the RIGHT thing for the COUNTRY and not there BS party.

6.
It is always easier to second guess yourself after the fact, so let me ask why are you this. Why are "jumping ship" now? Does this war REALLY effect you or do you just want your opinion heard. If you want your opinion heard then how about you shut your month because no really cares. What about all these families that have lost there GI, what are we to tell them if we basically GIVE UP and LEAVE! To you 3,000 is just a number, I knew the names and faces of that number and it means more to me then you will ever know. This war has become an example product of our society being high speed and get it now. Most Americans can not wait a few minutes in a fast food line to get fatter and die sooner.

ALL, please get your facts straight. Not all facts come from the news or even is mentioned in it. I am off for now back to this war thing that I am in.

CORRECTION!!!1.<br /... (Below threshold)
SGT Airborne:

CORRECTION!!!
1.
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do, maybe wrong time
Iraq had/has WMD, they gassed there own people after we left Iraq the first time...hmm (yea the "news" left that part out) in 199something! If I had it once I might have it again. Think not, who would use a NUC and not use it again if we needed to (we did).
Iraq were buying nuclear peaces from France and other locations...hmm (US/GB/Israel bomb it into peaces)
Iraq could have moved it's nuclear equipment when they knew when we were coming (Lord knows they had enough time, oh and we gave them a time line then too), wait who has started up a nuclear program in the last few months/years...hmmm (IRAN did you fool)

A little rough around the e... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

A little rough around the edges there, grammatically speaking... but on the mark there Sarge.


I continue to believe that people who haven't ever served in the military just don't understand what it's really like.

I don't, however, believe this should prevent them from making their opinion known or being part of the decision making process.

But, truth be known, they just don't understand.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy