Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Iraq = Iwo Jima.

Yet another bogus comparison of WWII and Iraq from Putz today (we've seen this nonsense from him before):
MICKEY KAUS compares Iraq and Iwo Jima.
The always idiotic Kaus quips:

6,821 Americans ...died to conquer the eight square miles of Iwo Jima. That's more than twice the number of Americans who've died in the entire Iraq war.

Good point! Except didn't Japan like, attack us first or something? And aside from the fact that Iraq didn't bomb us unprovoked and sink a good chunk of our fleet, they also weren't running roughshod over most of a continent, and taking over a about quarter of the globe.

But we'll play along. Let's look at Iwo Jima.

To conquer this small island measuring 8 square miles, populated by 22,000 Japanese soldiers, the United States sent in a force of 100,000 Marines. That's right, 100,000 Marines, to pacify 22,000 Japanese.

We've currently got a fighting force of less than 100,000 in Iraq (and less than 30,000 Marines), a country of more than 20 million.

If only BushCo would take the War on Terror(TM) seriously.

1 comment:

Alex said...

And the Japanese Army was a first-class, first-world military force of a major industrial power, not an amateur, disorganised guerilla army of angry peasants and slum-dwellers.

And US GIs were not fitted out with the kind of protective gear in 1945 that they are now even under an incompetent and callous administration.

And... And... And... Why must these people insist on having the obvious pointed out to them?

I should note that US casualties in Iraq are also lower than those caused by the Black Death, the Boxing Day Tsunami and the 1921 Influenza Epidemic, so i guess we should get over it already.

2,609 is "just a number" when you have a leader-worship mentality where your imagination and heart should be.