Sunday, November 26, 2006

Iraq Compared to WWII -- ??

We have more comparisons between WWII and Iraq --I know I am just an old soldier and not as smart as a journalist but comparing the two seems like comparing a Lamborghini to a Yugo--their both cars! Compare the overwhelming support to current protest, compare the overwhelming casualties inflected on the enemy, compare the US casualties suffered, compare the devastating destruction of property to surgical strikes, and imagine if we used something as little as "tactical nuclear devices" what kind of protest would be encountered--compare that protest if we went "nuclear" to the joy of WWII ending after using a "nuclear device"... Yep lots of similarities, NOT... Now let's compare how long we "occupied", the left's word, these countries we defeated in WWII--four years ain't even a drop in the bucket... How 'bout we compare monies spent to rebuild these countries we defeated in WWII--again the bucket is dry... On second thought, maybe I am smarter then a journalist--this one anyway! Some excerpts:

The U.S. mission in Iraq has now lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II. That should be an occasion for sober reflection. In less than four years -- from 1941 to 1945 -- the United States and its allies managed to defeat two of the most powerful militaries in the world. By contrast, today, we are still mired in an endless conflict in a single small country after the same amount of time.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Not to mention FDR had tools to use that today would be politically incorrect. George Bush doesn't have those tools. He must prosecute a war AND be politically correct toward the enemy. And gosh, the critics whine that the war is taking longer - really? Duh!