Wouldn't of it been better to attack Iran?

Vietnam was hell for US soldiers especially because of the weather. Going to war in another country where their home is their battlefield/playground is not playing for marbles.

So think about that latehorn.

 

A) 1 ton, 2 ton, 3 ton?? More than the Gigazillion Tons of Iranians living in Iran??

B) Either you've been in a cave for the past four years or you just surpassed Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney in stupidity. Even they reazlied that the Iraqis didn't welcome them.

C) And how do you suppose will that happen? (gaining a major power bit), America has destroyed a country, although it did gain some MAJOR construction contracts, but didn't gain any power.

Brain Dead?!?! oh, I thought you were awake, well I guess you'll realize what wrote when you are not brain dead.

 

If there's that much dissent inside of the country, why don't you guys do it yourself? You expect us to come save you from your own government, but do you forget how many lives we lost fighting for our own freedom and our own civil war once upon a time?

When we do stuff like what we did in Iraq, we just come in and remove one problem, but a new problem comes up in it's place because the people of Iraq weren't the ones fighting for their own freedom with utter conviction. Just let us do the dirty work over and over and over, then complain when it doesn't work.

 

Latehorn is happy sat in the comfort of his own home behind his PC mate. He's not thinking of fighting for this BS "war on terror" any time soon.

 

Dear Shawn, could we please ad one more sub cat to the General Chat category...

Entertainment
Politics and Religion
Hindsight

 

They won against Japan, Kuwait and western Europe, which they would be able to hold without any major difficulties.

Invading neighbors like Mexico or Canada would be better communication wise, if power expansion was the ultimate goal.

Perhaps it was just that it was in US interest to protect capitalism. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the threat on capitalism was disappearing. US(together with a coalition) decided to help it's ally Kuwait. After 9/11, the rumors of WMD was taken more seriously and US(together with a coalition) decided that it was better to take the risk of being wrong and invade than being right and not invade. In order to get more public approval they said that Saddam was connected with 9/11(pretty good argument at the time). Perhaps they speculated that he did, but weren't sure. After all, it was planned to withdraw troops early, which they weren't able to do. If they had, Bush(even tough the war was authorized by the congress) would be facing a lot less criticism for the actions.

Just a speculation..

 

Well, is it more comfortable to fight in a desert or in cold temperatures(as in WW2)? I don't mean it's easy, but is really Vietnam that bad? The soldiers sent there were well equipped compared to the rebells. War is always a hell, no matter where it is.

 

Nah it was because the public has no stomach for war. War has always been hell but TV just brings it directly to the public.

 

Isn't that where you sit? You probably rent though, huh?

 

As you have such a huge dossier on me I thought you would know the answer to that question already.

 

So I was right. Hypocrisy rears it's ugly head once more

 

naa man... Shia law must remain in iran.... and it will remain.. usa cant do anything... if they do millions of muslims will revolt..

 

I'd be willing to bet there are more Christians in Iran than people think