Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
Not really.. I was comparing the areas of fighting. Both Iraq and ww2 in Europe theater had a lot of bombing/ ground fighting in cities or populated areas. Much like Iraq has had. Just in Iraq much more care was taken on the bombing end of things compared to ww2. That was the point I was trying to make.
Even at the start of the war when Saddam was still in power our bombings and rocket attacks were very carefully planed to avoid as many civilian deaths as possible.
The type of fighting in Iraq would of course compare to more Vietnam, meaning fighting an insurgency rather than a real army. That and the govt not having an actual plan to win..
|
It's hard to compare WW2 with Iraq - not least because WW2 was a "legitimate war" and not an elected adventure by the US to invade based on total bullshit.
Other factors are - both sides in WW2 were opposing forces armed with "real weaponary". This is not the situation in Iraq - the "opposing forces" are labelled "insurgents" or "terrorists" and fight with the tools they can muster - they don't have Apache copters or bomber aircraft.
For a war based on lies - any deaths of civilians, whether by alleged "surgical strikes" or not, is totally unacceptable to most people. And, in reality - those claimed surgical strikes killed many thousands of innocent people and injured/maimed many 1000's more. Little doubts this created a number of genuine terrorists with a desire to kill any US person they can find. Sow the seed and reap the fruit...