Bush compares War in Iraq to WW2

[Styles 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.

And why the hell not?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

While I think it's pretty hard to say that WWII did nothing but bad, it did set a trend of the US being everybody else's garbageman, coming in to clean up whatever mess was made.

[spiny norman 0]

Okay, my argument is that it wasn't a good war in that millions died and that negates any financial benefits. A good war is when there are mass benefits and limited deaths (though obviously not to those who died). In saying that millions died, I was including the Jews.

 

And I disagree with YPOV that the USA shouldn't have gone in. Maybe not into Europe, but the war of the Pacific was one that they definitely needed to enter and probably should have well before they did.

[Styles 0]

And I disagree with YPOV that the USA shouldn't have gone in. Maybe not into Europe, but the war of the Pacific was one that they definitely needed to enter and probably should have well before they did.

Germany declared war on US, and had taken over nearly the entire European continent, and were allies with the Japanese. Moral arguments aside, I think it would have been a little tough to just ignore them...

[spiny norman 0]

The Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the United States did. That's not to discredit USA's involvement in the European War, as they were influential in Germany's defeat (hence me saying "maybe not", as in there can be an argument against it), but not to the point of Russia and the Battle of Stalingrad. I would say the United States only served to hasten the Second World War, as Germany were near defeat by the time America joined the war against them.

[Vern Gagne 0]

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

The Vietnam War went a long way in weakning the economy and military strength of the Soviet Union who where suppling the North Vietnam Army.

[Guest INXS]

Yet more idiocy from Bush. I was thinking that he might do something like this. Both are comparable in the sense that in both cases allied forces are fighting people who are against freedom to some degree but to compare the self made situation in Iraq to WWII is very, very silly.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Correction: The Russian Winter beat the Germans.

 

Also, if the US hadn't opened a second front and kept several German divisions locked there, Russia would have had problems. Where did everyone learn history from, there's more to it than your high school textbooks.

 

I don't think anyone can make a case over which side did more. But Spiny fails to remember, Russia was allied with Germany at the start.

 

Stephen Joseph, wishing people here actually knew something.

[Vyce 0]

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

 

Why would you -

 

.....no, never mind. I don't EVEN want to hear your rationalization.

[cawthon777 0]

but to compare the self made situation in Iraq to WWII is very, very silly.

For the record, since this tiny detail seems to be forgotten, he was speaking of the broad war on terror - not Iraq.

 

And no, it's not silly.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

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

 

Why would you -

 

.....no, never mind. I don't EVEN want to hear your rationalization.

Jesus Christ, you people are dense.

 

I just said that it saved the world from being run by a race of crazy aryans, right after Mike justified going in (not that you'd need to). I thought that this would show where my stance was on the issue (not that it should even be an issue) and I was just mocking Spiny by exaggerating and ignoring the fact that the world was saved and..ugh, never mind. Hell, I even agreed with HMW when he implied that the US should have gone in earlier, with the "burn" comment.

 

I wonder how low the opinion of me is in this folder that most people would think I was being serious by making such an obviously stupid statement. I don't post in here nearly enough to gain such a reputation.

 

That quote sounds weird, I'd have capitalized HEAR myself.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the United States did. That's not to discredit USA's involvement in the European War, as they were influential in Germany's defeat (hence me saying "maybe not", as in there can be an argument against it), but not to the point of Russia and the Battle of Stalingrad. I would say the United States only served to hasten the Second World War, as Germany were near defeat by the time America joined the war against them.

In the First World War this is true. The US entering the war gave the Allies a manpower boost that enabled them to win more quickly, but the Germans were beat by that point.

 

In World War 2, the tide didn't turn in the east until 1943. Also, having Stalin in Paris wouldn't be much better than having Hitler.

 

At the very least, the US was absolutely necessary in taking down the Japanese.

[spiny norman 0]

My mistake, by Second World War I meant European War, not the Pacific War, which obviously the US were instrumental in.

 

Popick, your point about Russia originally allied with Germany? Yes, but I don't see how that relates to anything seeing as how the US were neutral for a lot of the war. And it was when the Soviet Union's alliance with Germany folded and Germany attacked Russia that spelt the beginning of the end for Germany. That was the turning point.

 

As for everyone else, I think people are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say because I keep seeing people arguing against me expressing opinions I agree with. Yes, WWII had its advantages, many, but to call it a good war despite millions of deaths is an offensive statement, in my opinion. The United States were important in ending the war. When I said "Maybe not the European War" I should have phrased it "An argument could be made for them not entering Europe". I feel they were important there, yes, but I'm not sure if they were necessary or if the war would have ended in the Allies favour anyway, as Stalin was willing to kill half his population, so it appeared.

 

And, finally, the War on Terror is nothing like this. At all.