Bush compares War in Iraq to WW2

[Vanhalen 0]

I dont think any comment is needed here, just it scores a 10 on the stupidity meter

 

President Bush has strongly defended the US-led war on terror, casting it as a struggle between freedom and tyranny exactly like World War II.

 

In a speech to new air force officers, he said they were fighting the same war as those who battled the Nazis.

 

The war on terror, he said, resembles "the great clashes of the last century" between democracy and totalitarianism.

 

Mr Bush was speaking at the Air Force Academy, ahead of ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day.

 

He told graduating officers in Colorado Springs: "Each of you receiving a commission today in the United States military will also carry the hopes of free people everywhere."

 

Like the US involvement in World War II, he said the war on terror began with a surprise attack on the US.

 

"Like the murderous ideologies of the last century, the ideology of murderers reaches across borders," President Bush added.

 

The "enemies of freedom", he went on, mistakenly assumed that the US was "decadent" and would collapse.

 

"In those calls we hear echoes of other enemies in other times, the same swagger," he said.

 

"We will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy," he said.

 

He told the new officers that the US would continue to strike countries around the world.

 

"The best way to protect America is to stay on the offensive and attack more countries."

 

Mr Bush highlighted the importance of the Middle East, and re-affirmed his policy of fostering democracy there.

 

"If that region is abandoned to terrorists and dictators, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm," he said.

 

"If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business."

 

In the long term, the president added, "we expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region, we expect them to shape up to our standards."

 

Mr Bush also defended his administration's controversial record on Iraq.

 

He said that country was "more secure with Saddam Hussein in a prison cell, it didn't matter about a couple of isolated abuse cases".

[Guest Cerebus]

Um...Actually I would like to read your reasoning on why it "rates 10 on the stupidity meter." Iraq can be falsely compared to Vietnam till the cows come home but the instant one compares it to a "good" war its stupid? Please.

[Vanhalen 0]

So, you think that the breadth and scope of the second world war can be compared to invading Iraq, that Omaha beach, the desert rats, D-Day, the blitz, the battle of britain, the invasion of russian, the invasion of germany, pearl harbour, can all be compared to the war in Iraq?

[Vanhalen 0]

Um...Actually I would like to read your reasoning on why it "rates 10 on the stupidity meter." Iraq can be falsely compared to Vietnam till the cows come home but the instant one compares it to a "good" war its stupid? Please.

And how in the fuck the Second World war is a "good" war is beyond me?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Um...Actually I would like to read your reasoning on why it "rates 10 on the stupidity meter." Iraq can be falsely compared to Vietnam till the cows come home but the instant one compares it to a "good" war its stupid? Please.

And how in the fuck the Second World war is a "good" war is beyond me?

He means justifyable, which it was. He's assuming that the connection of it being stupid was because they're both justifyable, at least that's what I got from his post.

 

I don't agree obviously. The point is that it's not about whether it was right. it's stupid comparing something of the magnitude of WW2 where the fate of the world was at stake with the War in Iraq, where the fate of the world isn't at stake. It's a nice gesture sure, but is it as necessary/important as WW2? No I don't think so really.

 

This reminds me; I remember a guy who was absolutely against war at all costs. I asked him about WW2 and whether that was justifyable. He just said that we shouldn't have gone, because we probably started. My response: "You're a very brave man for thinking that way." I'm a nice guy, I didn't want to outright call him stupid.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Um...Actually I would like to read your reasoning on why it "rates 10 on the stupidity meter." Iraq can be falsely compared to Vietnam till the cows come home but the instant one compares it to a "good" war its stupid? Please.

And how in the fuck the Second World war is a "good" war is beyond me?

No war is good. Just some are necessary.

[Guest Cerebus]

WWII does not have anywhere close to the negative connotations as, say, Vietnam does. When people think of WWII they think of epic battles, brave soldiers, legendary generals, a clean cut war against facism and tyranny. When people think of Vietnam they think of quagmires, napalm, endless protests, PoWs, moral ambiguity, and atrocities by our side. In that sense you could call WWII a "good' war. Also, I don't remember you posting a topic about Ted Kennedy's completely erroneous statement comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

[snuffbox 0]

Unfortunately cerebus, there are many similarities between Vietnam and Iraq...both the wars, and the time eras.

 

-Both are politically/monetarilly motivated conflicts

-Both are seeing the unnecessary loss of both military and civilian life

-Both are seeing certain businesses profit very heavilly(Bell Helicoptrer vs. Haliburton)

-Both are presumably pushover victories for the US, but the conflicts then/now drag on far too long

-Both are keys to political campaigns

-Both eras show startling similarities amongst the polititians of the time(Bush=nixon, Kerry=Humphrey, bloatedKennedy=youngKennedy, Dean=McGovern)

-Both shape our world outlook, opinions, situations in negative lights

-Both are highly controversial to both Americans and the rest of the world

 

Well, theres 8 big similarities off the top of my head....but of course theyre not similar....

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

-Both are politically/monetarilly motivated conflicts

-Both are seeing the unnecessary loss of both military and civilian life

-Both are seeing certain businesses profit very heavilly(Bell Helicoptrer vs. Haliburton)

 

you have that in any war.

[Guest thebigjig]

Sorry but the war in Iraq is closer to Vietnam than World War II

[NoCalMike 0]

Sorry but the war in Iraq is closer to Vietnam than World War II

this is true. Bush, not making very intelligent statements lately, but hey, the man is desperate.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Sorry but the war in Iraq is closer to Vietnam than World War II

this is true. Bush, not making very intelligent statements lately, but hey, the man is desperate.

Lately? When has he ever made any?

[Guest thebigjig]

Now don't get me wrong... I'm not an idiot that's saying that the Iraqi war compares EXACTLY to the Vietnam war... there are OBVIOUS differences and I don't think I need anyone pointing them out

 

However, the decisions our leaders have made, and are making, compares strikingly... the misunderstanding of the enemy... the arrogance... the unilateralism... the philosophy

[tommytomlin 0]

Yeah, apart from the fact that the entire world isn't embroiled in a conflict against an alliance of hugely powerful countries who want to take over the four corners of the globe, then yeah, I guess it is.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

President Bush has strongly defended the US-led war on terror, casting it as a struggle between freedom and tyranny exactly like World War II.

 

I think the War on Terrorism is a bit more than just whats happening in Iraq. And while I still wouldn't compare it to WW2, it makes a lot more sense to compare the whole "War on Terror" to WW2 than just the Iraq component..

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, apart from the fact that the entire world isn't embroiled in a conflict against an alliance of hugely powerful countries who want to take over the four corners of the globe, then yeah, I guess it is.

Well, just like WW II, the world is oblivious to how bad the problem is. The few who took Hitler seriously early on were ignored, also.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

Yeah, apart from the fact that the entire world isn't embroiled in a conflict against an alliance of hugely powerful countries who want to take over the four corners of the globe, then yeah, I guess it is.

Well, just like WW II, the world is oblivious to how bad the problem is. The few who took Hitler seriously early on were ignored, also.

-=Mike

And just like World War II, the League of Nations / UN sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses until forced into action.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Yeah, apart from the fact that the entire world isn't embroiled in a conflict against an alliance of hugely powerful countries who want to take over the four corners of the globe, then yeah, I guess it is.

Well, just like WW II, the world is oblivious to how bad the problem is. The few who took Hitler seriously early on were ignored, also.

-=Mike

And just like World War II, the League of Nations / UN sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses until forced into action.

You could substitute "US" for "UN" in that statement quite easily with respect to WW2.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Yeah, apart from the fact that the entire world isn't embroiled in a conflict against an alliance of hugely powerful countries who want to take over the four corners of the globe, then yeah, I guess it is.

Well, just like WW II, the world is oblivious to how bad the problem is. The few who took Hitler seriously early on were ignored, also.

-=Mike

And just like World War II, the League of Nations / UN sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses until forced into action.

You could substitute "US" for "UN" in that statement quite easily with respect to WW2.

Burn.

[cawthon777 0]

So, you think that the breadth and scope of the second world war can be compared to invading Iraq, that Omaha beach, the desert rats, D-Day, the blitz, the battle of britain, the invasion of russian, the invasion of germany, pearl harbour, can all be compared to the war in Iraq?

I read the article and Iraq was mentioned once, at the very end. Bush was speaking on the war on terror, not just Iraq.

 

So yes, it can be compared to WWII in scope.

[cawthon777 0]

Um...Actually I would like to read your reasoning on why it "rates 10 on the stupidity meter." Iraq can be falsely compared to Vietnam till the cows come home but the instant one compares it to a "good" war its stupid? Please.

And how in the fuck the Second World war is a "good" war is beyond me?

It got us out of the Great Depression and led the way for a major influx in the middle class. Production increased exponentionally in the country and allowed for affordable housing, vehicles, appliences, and the like.

 

How's that for a start?

[spiny norman 0]

Millions of people died and it is linked to what would probably still be considered the greatest crime against humanity. I think that negates any major influx in the middle class, production increase etc.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

It's not over yet, and we won't know until several years after it is. But right now, if I had to bet, I'd bet on Iraq bearing more similarity to Vietnam than WW2.

 

And the War on Terrorism is more like The Cold War than either of the other two.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Yeah WWII did have a whole lot of positives in regards to helping the US get out of the Depression and getting rid of Hitler to name two big ones. But all wars have negatives, even WWII, but this was necessary war, becuase two countries declared war on the US. Sometimes you have to fight back, regardless if you are a pacifist or war monger. In this case, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, leaving the US no other option but to fight back. And even though the atomic bomb being dropped was a horrible thing, it did show that nukes are terrible things, and should never be used again. And of course, term limits for the President was another positive, albeit, they became due to FDR's death, which was accelerated by his extra terms in office. And WWII also helped bring women into the work force, showing that woman could do the jobs of men (I had to add one thing feminism, sorry). It was a thing that brought the country together and indeed helped make the US the most dominant country in the world. And remember, the US stayed neutral for almost three years, so it wasn't like they jumped right into the fighting.

 

As for what the Iraq situation might end up resembling, is Vietnam, unfortunately. And that is only if this thing continues on and on. This becomes a "Vietnam" only if soldiers continue to be killed, and the Iraqi's refuse to either fight for the cause, or continue to fight against us. But, it is still too early. And I really do hope this situation is successfull, mainly because I want our men in uniform to come home on a plane, and not in a body bag. One reason why the Iraq war will never be like Vietnam is that with Vietnam, the soldiers were treated badly upon return home. At least in this day and age, the soldiers have the general public's support. Heck, I am against the war from the get go, but I still support the troops. I feel that many anti-war people share this belief. Even the idiots involved in the Abu G prison scandal, still have my respect for being over there, I just don't support what they did.

 

So I do feel Bush was wrong to compare WWII to Iraq. That was a poor choice of comparison. This war is so different, and too early to really warrant any comparison to wars of the past. Unfortunately for Bush Iraq could end up hurting him enough that he loses the election, even with an improving economy, the longer this war goes on the more it will hurt Bush.

 

As for what I think needs to be done in Iraq. Well I do feel that we need more international help. We need more soldiers so that our men/women who are way past their 12 mos tour of duty can come home to their families. Also, right now it does not look good that the only soldiers the Iraqi's see are the "Christian" occupiers. With a more international flavor, along with some Muslim countrie's help (Turkey for example) then it would lesson the mistrust that many Iraqis have, and it would also debunk the terrorist's recruiting methods of saying that the "Western armies are invading you, declare jihad against the infidels."

 

It would help show that we are not there to take over, but to help. And I do feel that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam, but this is going to take a whole lot of time and effort to help Iraq get on its feet. When I hear that many Iraqis say we are worse than Saddam, that is not a good thing, no matter how much it is false. And if we don't want other troops there, at least accept milatary police to help police the Iraq, who have the training, which many of our soldiers do not have for various reasons. And even if some countries were not for the war, but are willing to help the rebuilding, let them help. And also, we can bring our National Guardsmen who got stationed over there back home, so they can Guard the US. And that is the main thing I would do, amoung others. Anything that helps our troops I am for. More international help would definately help,IMO.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

As for what the Iraq situation might end up resembling, is Vietnam, unfortunately. And that is only if this thing continues on and on. This becomes a "Vietnam" only if soldiers continue to be killed, and the Iraqi's refuse to either fight for the cause, or continue to fight against us. But, it is still too early. And I really do hope this situation is successfull, mainly because I want our men in uniform to come home on a plane, and not in a body bag. One reason why the Iraq war will never be like Vietnam is that with Vietnam, the soldiers were treated badly upon return home. At least in this day and age, the soldiers have the general public's support. Heck, I am against the war from the get go, but I still support the troops. I feel that many anti-war people share this belief. Even the idiots involved in the Abu G prison scandal, still have my respect for being over there, I just don't support what they did.

Agreed. One of the tactical errors of the left during the 60's and 70's was a failure to remember that the troops who went over there were basically us -- kids the same age as the kids burning their draft cards. And, by the way, yeah, the draft -- so not every soldier in Vietnam chose to go there. A failure to make the distinction between the decision makers behind the war and the kids fighting it. Blaming the troops for the Vietnam war was a moral and tactical mistake.

 

That, among other things, has allowed conservatives to wrap themselves in the flag and crown themselves the Patriotic Party -- and, by proxy, suggest liberals to be the less patriotic or, more extremely, unpatriotic party (which is of course totally untrue, but the problem is a lot of people on both sides believe it to be the case, which starts to make it truer than it should be [self-fulfilling prophecy and what not]).

[cawthon777 0]

And the War on Terrorism is more like The Cold War than either of the other two.

Except for the fact the Russians didn't bring the war to US soil ... unless you saw Red Dawn, of course.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Difference with Vietnam and Iraq is that we were at least somewhat victorious in Iraq (ousting Saddam).

[The Czech Republic 0]

I don't like saying that Iraq is "just like Vietnam." (For one thing, the music was better.) But to be serious, they aren't really the same beast at all. You can go "Haliburton is making money just like Bell Helicopter!" and "It's a war we don't want to fight!" but beyodn those superficial things there are so many very different things between Iraq and Vietnam that give the two wars their own very individual dynamics.

 

While we're on the topic of Vietnam, I'd like to recommend Tim O'Brien's novel The Things They Carried to anyone who has yet to read it. It draws you in and pisses you off. I won't give away much else right now.

[Guest MikeSC]

Millions of people died and it is linked to what would probably still be considered the greatest crime against humanity. I think that negates any major influx in the middle class, production increase etc.

spiny, it saved European Jews from total extinction.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Millions of people died and it is linked to what would probably still be considered the greatest crime against humanity. I think that negates any major influx in the middle class, production increase etc.

spiny, it saved European Jews from total extinction.

-=Mike

and the rest of the world from being dominated by a race of crazy aryans.

 

It wasn't good or anything though. In hindsight we probably shouldn't have gone in.