Shouldn't the US give Syria and Iran a taste of their own medicine?
2006-09-01 09:30:07 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Why stop with Iraq and Afganistan? It will be sooner or later.
2006-09-01 09:30:54 · update #1
They're on the list, we just need to liquidate some of our troop strength in Iraq before we move.
2006-09-01 09:33:23 · answer #1 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iraq and Afganistan are the set up. If you krow your geography, you would realize that Iran and Syria are now surrounded on 2 1/2 sides by U.S. troops. Iraq boarders Syria and Iran. Afganistan boarders Iran and Turkey boarders Syria. We also have forces off the shores of Iran and Syria.
2006-09-01 19:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They will sooner or later. The thing that really gets to me is that Iran and Syria are bigger threats than Iraq, i think Bush only attacked Iraq because it was an easier target.
2006-09-01 09:39:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because we only have 500,000 guys in the army on active duty, and right now 175,000 of them are in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan while another 175,000 just came out of those countries. That leaves like 150,000 to invade with (these are just gross numbers its really alot more complex than that). But 150,000 wouldn't be enough to invade Iran. Maybe we could pull off Syria, but Iran is a physical impossibility.
Plus, it'd be stupid for alot of political reasons - we're getting our political clock cleaned right now for not being successful in Iraq, taking on another country that we can screw up would be dumb.
2006-09-01 09:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by Charles D 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We're trying to get the rest of the world to see what a problem militant Islam is and make a move.
Read "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer and you'll learn why Europeans aren't more concerned about Iran and Syria.
2006-09-01 09:34:46 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because it would precipitate a wider war, an acceleration towards nuclear weapons, and the possibility of massive casualties on both sides.
2006-09-01 09:33:04 · answer #6 · answered by USAUSAUDA 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sure let's just bomb the whole world and get it over with? Is that really your solution to problems?? I think you need to think long and hard about the US getting involved in any more preemptive wars. We're supposed to be better than that.
2006-09-01 09:37:21 · answer #7 · answered by carpediem 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
create world war 3, sure, the U.S. never defeated fascism, we can see neo nazis and skinheads. the U.S. nefver defeated communism, we can see vietnam, china, north korea, cuba, cambodia, laos.
2006-09-01 09:47:05 · answer #8 · answered by xiy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I need to kick ur *** you bored suburban stupid white boy.
2006-09-01 11:23:31 · answer #9 · answered by savio 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's still on schedule, actually.
2006-09-01 23:20:51 · answer #10 · answered by Hafizul Azrin H 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋