QR332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
...the Iraq war has lasted only thee years, while WW2 lasted six, and that is just the European part of it. I think you might have confused this with something to do with the Iran-Iraq war between '82 and '88, which I think was the bloodiest war in the world since WW2.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1694 times:
Quoting AA787823 (Thread starter): Just saw on the news that the Iraq war will outlast WWII next week, how long will this war last???? Will it turn into the longest war in history??
Who is giving you such false information?
This war in Iraq has gone on for 3 years and 10 months. The Second World War lasted 6 years and 1 day.
Now, I wasn't good at math, but seems to me the Iraq war has a LONG way to go to pass up old WWII.
JetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2964 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
The American involvement in WW2 does not constitute the entire length of the war itself. Like others have said, the war went on for close to six years.
Chris
Edit: Note, I posted this before the OP further clarified his meaning of USA involvement.
That's more like it. U.S. involvement in WWII was Dec 7th, 1941 till Sep 2, 1945. Just shy of 4 years.
And, it has a long way to go to reach some other wars. The Vietnam War, in fact, lasted about a quarter century. And wasn't there something call "The Hundred Years' War", way back when?
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
Quoting AA787823 (Thread starter): Just saw on the news that the Iraq war will outlast WWII next week, how long will this war last????
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7): That's more like it. U.S. involvement in WWII was Dec 7th, 1941 till Sep 2, 1945. Just shy of 4 years.
I would even go so far as to say it was more than Dec 4th 1941 - Sep 2nd 1945 because the US was escorting North Atlantic convoys from the end of 1939, with authority to engage hostile entities, so prior to the Japanese and German delcarations of war, the US was more than involved already on 'unofficial' levels.
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
You will see US troops in Iraq for longer than the US involvement in WWII was surely. With the current state of affairs there, you will see likely see US troops there through the rest of the Bush administration. Depending on how the 2008 election goes, you may see a pullout in late January 2009.
Not even close, not even in the past hundred years. And not even close compared to other conflicts . . .
Quoting Banco (Reply 6): Well now, we've had the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War...
Quoting Banco (Reply 8): And then you have the Punic Wars that lasted 120 years off and on
I forgot how long that lasted. Too bad we can't have our own Battle of Cannes and eliminate most of the enemy in one action.
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12): With the current state of affairs there, you will see likely see US troops there through the rest of the Bush administration. Depending on how the 2008 election goes, you may see a pullout in late January 2009.
Obviously, the Prez doesn't care about polls, etc., so don't count on him doing a cut-and-run change of tactics to get us out before '08. So, it does depend on which candidate wins the next election as to how long we stay. If it's Billiary, count on Billy doing some international posturing while the she-male plays the blame-game while our troops flounder until they're pulled out.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 27 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1599 times:
The surrender of Japan was not the end of American activities in the region....the occupation of both Japan and Germany lasted well after declarations of peace.
And since when was the invasion of Iraq ever a "war"?
Right now it is an occupation plain and simple.
Did not GWB declare "Mission Accomplished" only after 6 weeks of "official" hostilities?
Another case of the media making up shit as they go along...treating the Iraq situation like it just another score in the day's sports headlines. 37 today, 29 yesterday, 133 the day before that, blah-blah-blah...all they do is rattle off numbers, but never go any deeper into the conflict to show Americans exactly what their sons and daughters are really doing, why they are dying; what they are giving their lives for.
We're an occupying force that is all, there is no war.
God I hate the whole thing....just want it to be over as soon as possible.
Confuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3636 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
Will it turn into the longest war in history??
The war on poverty started during the Johnson administration and ended in the 80s. And don't forget the war on drugs. It started in the 80s during the Reagan Administration and still on going. Then there's this war on terror...
...can't we just make an old-fashioned war, you know against a country?
FlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
As others have pointed out, we were in Japan and Germany long after the "end" of the WWII.
Reconstruction in the South also lasted well into the 1870's following the American Civil War, even though the South surrrendered in 1865.
Is Iraq taking longer than expected? Probably (but I can't guess what timetable those who planned this operation had in mind). People need to stop expecting this thing to happen over night.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
You better start watching a different news broadcast . . . cause the one you're citing (without the cite) is screwed. . . .
However, looking forward, this one has great potential to go on well beyond the time when Germany and Japan were functioning countries again. Even so, Vietnam will take a bit of beating. Then again, Vietnam always had a potential stable government waiting in the wings. This does not seem to be the case for Iraq now the one it had has been dumped.
RichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting QR332 (Reply 1): which I think was the bloodiest war in the world since WW2.
Someone please correct me on this, but I believe the bloodiest and longest lasting war since WWII was and still is going on in Africa over resources. But since it is Africa...nobody really cares.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 21): And it isn't even a real milestone, WWII started when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. So we still have a good decade to go to meet that mark.
No worries, this one looks to have the legs to make it! But if you include Manchuria, should you not start this one at 1990? Not much peace since then???
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
... and if we're really into hair-splitting surely The World war in question actually started in the Balkans 1911-12, exploded for a few years in 1914, bubbled along in Germany, Russia, the middle east, China and Spain etc for 25 years before getting really noticed again 1939-45.
The division into parts 1 and 2 being purely arbitrary.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
25 Pacificjourney: Oh and Vietnam, that's about 1944 to 1980 !
26 Confuscius: "And it isn't even a real milestone, WWII started when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. So we still have a good decade to go to meet that mark." It al
27 Boeing4ever: Because we already own them. Hell, half of their bloody population is being kept at Camp Chicago. We need them as the Trojan Horse part of our dastar
28 L-188: Well somebody beat me to that, but using that arguement WWII started with WWI. There was just a 20 year break in hostilites. But they where inevitabl
30 Baroque: That is the best link in all these wondrous connections, but as I posted before, don't be too nostalgic for the good old days of the O Empire. Then a
31 Banco: Really? Funny you say that, because we in the UK are sitting on your shoulders waiting for you to make a mistake so we can take over the world again.
32 Miamiair: And your point is? Job has to get done, no matter how long it takes. And as a side note, in WW2 we had more allies than just the Brits and the Canadi
33 MDorBust: Well, we could always end the fighting in Iraq the same way we ended the fighting in Japan in WWII if timelines are really that important. For some re
34 Miamiair: Send the Marines in after everything cools down, and paint the lines for the World's largest parking lot.
35 Prebennorholm: Huh, it is always easy play with numbers. One of the best advices I have ever got is: Never trust statistics which you didn't manipulate yourself. War
36 Prebennorholm: Right! And imagine if the Vikings hadn't surrendered at "The Battle at Hastings" in 1066, then Britain had remained a Danish colony. Britain would ne
37 L-188: Yeah, well you had to expect that after that many eon's of unprotected viking sex.
38 Boeing4ever: That's the beauty of sitting on a huge stockpile of nukes. If we fuck up, you're goin' with us. B4e-Forever New Frontiers
39 Baroque: Well you make a cogent argument, but it seems that the Viking kingdom may not really have existed, so how does that affect the price of fish? I like
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, 
At one stage I wondered if we were doing it in real time...
From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, 
I forgot how long that lasted. Too bad we can't have our own Battle of Cannes and eliminate most of the enemy in one action.
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
