View Story | 88 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Macgregor likened the policy of fighting all three Iraqi anti-occupation forces at once to Adolf Hitler's insistence on continuing a two-front war against the Soviet Union and the Western powers during World War II, which is widely regarded as having ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Comparing Hitler's war against united groups of nation states which involved conventional fronts and millions of uniformed soldiers to this insurgency in Iraq is, imo, a poor analogy. Perhaps it could be compared to Hitler's occupation of the USSR where his forces had to suffer under the constant attacks of relentless partisans.
I myself would compare the US occupation of Iraq to the British occupation of Iraq after WW1. The British also arrived offering promises of liberation and eventually left after thousands of their soldiers were dead.
Cindy McCain: "In Arizona The Only Way To Get Around The State Is By Small Private Plane"
by assyrian64 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:59:09 AM PDT
by Sigrid of Horg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:20:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The British are always doing the old 'in out' in Iraq.
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:39:49 AM PDT
After all, rape is essentially what we did to that country.
by metal prophet on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:18:15 AM PDT
referes to attacking everyone at once. Two front or three front battles.
by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:40:34 AM PDT
that Bush decided to open up a second and even more difficult front when he had not secured the initial war zone, is right on.
The world dearly loves a cage.
by epppie on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:57:44 AM PDT
I think the basic point of comparison, that Bush decided to open up a second and even more difficult front when he had not secured the initial war zone, is right on.
The argument that a nation cannot win a two-front war is quickly disproved by example of the United States in WW2 which defeated both Japan And Nazi Germany, literally on opposite sides of the globe.
Bush is not losing the war in Iraq because he didn't secure the "initial war zone", i.e., Afghanistan. He is losing there today for different reasons.
If, e.g., the attacks on 9-11 hadn't occurred, and the US didn't attack Afghanistan, but did go ahead and invade Iraq, I believe Bush would still be losing the fight there, due to (1) Incompetent leadership, (2) Lack of national and international support due primarily to the immoral reasons and lies used to start the war, and, (3) A determined local insurgency willing to fight to the death.
by assyrian64 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:19:17 AM PDT
...took on China, UK, USSR and the US, They were both completely encircled by enemies. Germany buried their army into Russia. The Japanese bureid their army into China. The US wasn't fighting a two front war per se.
by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:23:09 AM PDT
is to opening a war on two fronts that split his forces... ya know "divide and conquer?" Looks like he did it to himself... just like Bush.
"A lie repeated, may be accepted as fact, but the truth repeated becomes self evident." -Elonifer Skyhawk
by Fireshadow on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:09:10 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 88 comments