Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go do some research and stop spouting off. Going off what you're saying, I could say that 9/11 had happened 2 years before Iraq...but I'm not even going there.
"The Battle of Quebec was an attempt on December 31, 1775 by American revolutionaries to capture the Canadian city of Quebec and enlist French-Canadian support for the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery were the two primary American commanders in the assault, which failed. The battle was the climax of the American invasion of Canada, and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the Americans." From wikipedia.
Amazing how that's almost exactly parallel to what we did in Iraq...which was invade to motivate the entire middle east region to turn democratic.
There is absolutely no parallel. Before the Battle of Quebec:
Battle of Lexington and Concord: April 19, 1775
Battle of Bunker Hill: June 17, 1775
Siege of Boston: April 1775 - March 1776
We were already at war when we invaded Canada
And don't play the idealism card, we weren't trying to bring democracy anywhere. We were trying to keep them from using Canada as a launch point for invasions into New England and to get additional troops via French Canadians. The reasons for the invasion of Canada are not as pure as you would like to think. And, Britain was already a democracy at the time (Parliament, anyone?). We were a colony with no voting rights, which, ironically, is the way the US does business with its territories as well (Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Guam, US Marshall Islands, anyone?).
Edit: And oh, just for the record, a lot of my officer friends are also dubious about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. They are currently there or in Afganistan. Doing one's job well != agreeing with the reasons for having to do the job.