-=Rousseau=-

Why is it that a war in which 5k American soldiers have been killed and civilian casualties have been at least kept to a minimum has been lambasted as horrible, yet WWII is glorified?

WWII: US & allies fight to defeat Hitler. The US and Allied forces bomb cities, with very high civilian casualties. Dresden is one example, it was not a very excellent military target, but was bombed to pieces. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in 100,000 civilians (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm) Meanwhile, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons, resulting in immediate deaths of 220,000 people, almost all civilians. The radiation also had long term effects...

The amount of civilian deaths as a result of WWII (40 million) makes the total amount of deaths as a result of the Iraq War seem puny. Why is the Iraq War seen as a death trap, while WWII was "America's greatest generation" and generally glorified?

Hussein was directly responsible for nearly 2 million deaths [http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers...in.html#kills], which is comparable - but significantly lower than - the death toll by Hitler (~6.5 million). Is getting him out of power that much less important than stopping Hitler?

Neither situation directly involved America at the time of our involvement, so neither was directly in defense of American freedom.

Drew1369

because some people think that this war is illegal even tho there is no proof as too why its illegal.

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

mimo2005

WWII was a justified war for the US :
1- We were attacked by a known Ennemy ( see i said known) , so it is normal for the country to defend itself and goes to war against japan and its friends.
2- Iraq invasion was based on lies (white house), and our allies clearly asked us to Not attack Iraq ( germany, france and belgium). It is costing us today, i don't know how many billions $ every week to keep that country from Implosion.
3-Our friends UK (Blair took the back door) and spain (AZNAR PARTY KAPPUT) had suffered by following the US in this war , but not as much as us , the american taxpayers who pay and will pay for many years to come. Money that we need today to be ready to tomorrow challenges (education-health- economy-research-Infrastructure)
4- did we improve the iraqis life?
type the word "iraq" in google , and see the results for yourself.
5- How many people died because of saddam?
But how many iraqi died after the US invasion because of "the mahdi army" and cleric "sadr" , and how many died because of the new Alqaeda sunni backed commandos, and the US bombing collateral damage.
1 millions or 2 millions ? How many iraqis citizen were displaced to jordan ,syria ,and iran?

__________________

TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help


"Gutta cavat lapidem,
non vi sed saepe cadendo"

-=Rousseau=-

Were we attacked? Not until Pearl Harbor, and we were already heavily involved in the war by then. We just hadn't officially declared. (US subs engaged German U-boats, we sent everything but troops over to Europe.)

Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, this did not necessitate our entry into the European theater of the war. We fought WWII on 2 fronts: Europe and the Pacific. We could have fought purely in the Pacific, we just used the Pacific front as a reason to enter the war full force. (In fact, FDR wanted to enter the war much earlier, but didn't have public support. Look up isolationism and anti-war sentiments prior to WWII.)

2. What lies, praytell? Bad intel doesn't always equal lies. Plus, it's not like we didn't know that Iraq had WMD at some point in time - they f'n used them on the Kurds prior to the Gulf War.

3. WWII wasn't free either

4. We thought we would be freeing them. Who knew that being united by a dictator was the only thing keeping them from killing each other?

5. I already mentioned how many died because of Saddam. Those who died because of the US invasion by other forces, IE the mahdi, sadr, and the Afghani commandos aren't exactly caused by the US - they are unfortunate results that wouldn't have been predicted - unless you just assume that dictatorships are the only thing holding the ME together at all, and if you take out a dictator, everyone will kill each other.

Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of US bombing, I can assure you, are a heck of a lot lower than the 300,000+ that I already mentioned occurred during WWII and our bombing of Japan/Dresden. WWII was not without its displaced citizens, either.



--------------------

This is NOT a thread where I'm trying to support the Iraq War. What you have failed to realize, in going with the group-think, is that I'm asking why WWII is regarded so positively... You can only argue so much that WWII was in defense of our nation - it was really about defending our ideals of democracy, etc.

yustr

For me it boils down to this: Germany and Japan, if allowed to proceed unabated, were a direct threat to the US and our allies. Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to anyone. Nothing more needs to be said.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

-=Rousseau=-

With exception to the Kurds and their own citizens, perhaps.

Were they a threat to the US itself though? Or would they have stopped with Europe? To paint them as wanting to take over the world seems to be a bit simplistic, to me.

Terrorism has really complicated this issue in Iraq. The campaign in the Middle East was supposedly against terrorism, but since terrorism has no nationality, who do we fight? How do we go about that kind of war? Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, attempting to root out terrorists, but ultimately failed in finding Bin Laden and only succeeded in making things more complicated when he took Hussein out of power. It seems to have been a no-win situation: leave Hussein in power and he holds dictatorial control over his people and abuses them and their rights. Take him out of power, and throw the country into chaos and rival factions.

Personally, I think the execution of the Iraq War has been a big screwup.

I was simply trying to throw into the light the fact that WWII has been glorified to the point that few realize its bad points.

1) It introduced the method of carpet bombing cities by the allies. (Bombing the &%(# out of cities, with high #s of civilian casualties.

2) NUKES. Some argue that they saved lives, but either way they killed 200k+ civilians. A demonstration off the coast or on an island near Japan, but uninhabited, could have been tried first, as a warning.

3) Japanese internment camps in the US. Excused at the time by the argument that it was for their protection, lest mobs of angry Americans attack them...

I think way too many people see WWII through the lens of movies like Saving Private Ryan and games like Call of Duty. Yes, SPR portrayed the horribleness of war in general in its opening scene, but it hardly portrayed the amount of civilian suffering that occurred (it showed bombed out buildings, but the only civilians seen were somewhat safe - it hardly portrayed the fact that more civilians were killed in the war than soldiers.).

bry623

The big difference is that WWII was run by the same liberal party that ran the country during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (until 1969). Since they weren't in power when Iraq started, they feel it gives them more leeway to be critical. I'm willing to wager that if a Gore had gotten more EVs in 2000, and had decided to strike Iraq, there would not be nearly as much as outcry as there currently is.

Add the instant global media that we have access to and the war changes each minute right at our finger tips, allowing public opinion to help shape policy. In WWII, an event was well over before the public knew about it.

__________________
When you fear Sarah, you attack her and try destroy her

EnglishPaul

If Germany had secured Europe (and Russia) and stopped there, the USA would still have to come to terms with a new superpower on the block. One with a big ego, and proved fighting record. Plus (and I don't think it was a motive) America did very well from the fact that Europe was in tatters.
And from a moral standpoint, I think it was the right thing to do. And Europe is still profoundly grateful that the balance was tipped in the Allies favour.

There were very bad things about WWII, but it was Hitler that invaded the innocent, and all that followed was a fight for survival.
Iraq is not a fight for survival. It seems to me that it was seen as a bit of a plaything that could emulate daddy, and secure lots of oil- both in terms of supply and also in terms of rebuilding contracts. Unfortunately the plaything was not the easy win that would have geed up the Americans; it was instead the uncorking of the genie of unrest's bottle.

The war may be cleaner, but America is the aggressor this time, and if you wanted to make WWII comparisons, it would be for a united Arab force to face up to America and say 'Back off, or face war'.

sobeit

based on your replies so far, sounds more like you just want to debate not listen to other opinions, what your agenda???

__________________
Do not feed the trolls.