Thats the whole link I quoted....

Like I said this is only the start of this. It will only get worse. If we leave in a year that zone will become a warzone. Also you are forgetting all those injured and loss of limbs. On top of this miltary officials have said this. We discussed that in this forum before. And people outside of the US have been saying it too. You can't police a nation that doesn't want to be policed. But unfortuantly we put it this way so now we have to deal with it. And to call Iraq having a powerful military is well wrong. You did see how long it took us just to roll over them. This is the first time we are nation building like this, so would be hard to compare to anyone else. Pluss this is a different type of hostile zone so you really can't compare it to anything else. And I'll say again things will only start to get worse before they ever get better if they ever will. And don't forget to count how many Iraqies have died since we got there.....

 

Germany, after WWI in the Weimer republic.

Germany, WWII- Well known that the Red Arny raped and pillaged well after the the treaty and occupation, thus encouraging any able bodied German to fight for their lives and property. Hard to qauntify Russian loss, but the German loss was huge.

But then you may not 'believe' that this occured. Maybe you should raise the bar to 100,000.

 

Ok... thread closer.

Colin Powell is officially re-named Colon Powell.

 

LOL!!! best thread closer evar. CASE CLOSED!

 

What are you smoking? Take a look at the casualty totals for the war...what, 40 million worldwide, 20 million in Europe!?

WWI-20 million.

That's your idea of a successful campaign compared to Iraq!?

My point is that those wars cost HUGE amounts of life for territory gain. In contrast, a full scale invasion and years of occupation in Iraq have not been relatively so costly.

 

I can't help it if your point is unclear. You asked the above question, I gave you an answer.

What this has to do with your point, I'm not sure, as you are the one proposing this false rhetorical.

I'd throw in a few more countries as well, but your quiblling over a subjective term like 'powerful military' would waste a lot of our time .

 

I think you need to reread my question. How is WWII and I an example of a war fought more painlessly and with fewer casualties than Iraq!? Is 40 million dead a war that's going well, whereas 1000 dead in years is poor???

 

You are a complete idiot.

 

Ah yes, tweedle dee and tweedle dum, in unison, broadcasting their ineptness. The masters of fallacies, oozing out poor arguments and sensless questions.

You asked for any war. Was this not your question?:

"Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened."

You did not say, compare said war to Iraq, or any other war for that matter.

"How is WWII and WWI an example of a war fought more painlessly and with fewer casualties than Iraq!? Is 40 million dead a war that's going well, whereas 1000 dead in years is poor."

Doesn't sound like the above question too much.
I don't know the answer to that, as I think it is a poor attempt at being rhetorical. Too be honest, I thought you were questioning the amount killed after said war began, as in during an occupation of a post-war zone. "more painlessly"

 

Yeah, is english your first language? did you see "with a loss of a thousand men" there? WWII is NOT a war where the battle was fought with a loss of a thousand men. Neither is World War I.

Now, to be honest, I can't see how you would think that....unless of course you need a refresher in sentence construction.

 

You only think it's rhetorical because it happens to be a good point that you (and others) choose to forget -or- never grasp.