Comments:

Flat Nested Threaded Embedded

Oldest First Newest First

Author	Thread:
Factoid	What is the difference? Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:28 AM Differences:   1. WWII was a war against other countries with organized armies. Not small organized terror groups.   2. Germany was defeated becouse they made the mistake of fighting a 2 front war. 3. Japan surrendered shortly after we dropped atomic bombs on them.   4. Have you compared the troop levels involved in WWII to those involved in our current conflict? How about # of countries involved?   5. How about the difference in our citizens now...much more liberal, much more anti-war....basically we've become a country pampered wimps.   Don't stand on your soap box and blame one person ( Bush ) when other presidents had the chance to stop  911 long before Bush came to office.   Factiod
ZoneIII	9/11: Five years Later Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:24 AM The difference is that we were fighting countries, not small terrorist groups who hide in caves.   Wake up!
Been There	Iraq War Now Longer than World War II Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:05 PM US involved in Iraq longer than in WWII WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the US involvement in the conflict that President Bush's father fought in, World War II.   ... The Iraq war began March 19, 2003, with the US 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. The fighting has dragged on, and most of the 2,800-plus US military deaths have occurred after Bush suggested an end to what he called the Iraq front in the global fight against terrorism. Factoid: Don't sell our military short. Our soldiers are quite capable of defeating a ragtag bunch of terrorists if our so-called leader gives them the proper support for that mission. According to your way of thinking, Bush is losing to al Qaeda because he started a second front in Iraq instead of committing our forces to the task of defeating our attackers. As you pointed out, with real leadership the U.S. won a massive two-front war in the 1940s (see point 2). And we did that even though we began WWII with very little military strength (because the republican isolationists in congress had prevented a U.S. military buildup). Real leaders do not send soldiers into battle without the proper force levels to accomplish the objective. Real leaders do not send soldiers into battle without a realistic exit strategy. Virtually no one opposed tracking down and destroying the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Bush had the full support of the nation and, in fact, of the majority of the people of the world. Only a person with no leadership skills could have dissipated that support by launching an unnecessary war of choice instead of winning the war we were already in. The real wimps in this country are the chicken-hawks like Bush and his good-for-nothing advisors, as you well know. Bush hid behind his father's skirt when it came time for him to face combat. We who served our country do not want cowardly idiots like George W. Bush to send our sons and daughters to uncalled-for deaths.   ZoneIII: If Bush had kept our soldiers' relentless focus on destroying al Qaeda instead of redeploying them to Iraq, no caves could have saved the terrorists. Bush failed to defeat our enemies, and now he has failed to defeat Iraq also, even though we've been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought WWII. No one could have done worse. Been There