i think that the newest war with iraq because we should have finished them off the first time

The most pointless war would be the Falkland Islands.

If you mean the Argentinians attacking and thinking they could get away with it and the potential gains versus the risks they ran, then I would agree. If you mean the British reaction and decision to protect their citizens in the Falklands, then I would strongly disagree.

Sending in the cavalry to throw out the local bandits (well, the Agrentinians acted like bandits) and allow the locals to live in peace is the whole point of a government - to protect its citizens.

What right do the British have even being on the Falklands?

Thats like asking, what right the US had to expand westward.

As far as I'm concerned, no war is smart unless US interests are at stake.

Originally Posted by silent driller

As far as I'm concerned, no war is smart unless US interests are at stake.

What do you mean?
Do you mean that the US shouldn't interfere to help oppressed people in other countries?
That the US should retire from the UN and just let the world burn if there's no money or security to be gained by the US?

That would be a nice point of view.

It would mean that a lot of people died in vain, because Vietnam, Bosnia, Korea, the first Gulf war, and the invasion of Normandy were "not smart". It would mean that I was never born, or if was, that I would speak German.

No, you couldn't possibly have meant that, I must have interpreted your post wrong.

1217, I think you DID interpret it wrong. US interest does not just mean money. We have an interest in world stability. We have an interest in foreign trade. We have an interest, in short, in a lot of other things besides money. However, we also have an interest in staying in good standing among the world community. To turn things around, do you think all of our wars should cause harm to the US without visible gain?

Originally Posted by Jamoni

1217, I think you DID interpret it wrong. US interest does not just mean money. We have an interest in world stability. We have an interest in foreign trade. We have an interest, in short, in a lot of other things besides money. However, we also have an interest in staying in good standing among the world community. To turn things around, do you think all of our wars should cause harm to the US without visible gain?

Thanks, Jamoni, but I was looking for Silent Drillers opinion. There's several ways to interpret his post, I'd like to know what he meant.

The Malvinas/Falkland war was due to the fact that the Argentinian regimen needed a patriotic victory to hide the overall problems in the country.

Talking about that, though, I've heard histories -from a First Sergeant in the Academy- about Argentinian centinels hurting themselves at night because the rumor that Brit's Ghurkas (sp?) were about to attack spreaded among them. Too much time alone with their own mind, I suppose.