Has BUSH's STUPIDITY caused AMERICA TO LOSE both AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ?

Question

- Opium production in Afghanistan is up 50% from last year.

-Afghanistan NOW SUPPLIES 92% of the world's opium (illegally) for heroin and other opiate derivatives.

-The money gathered from OPIUM SALES is allowing the TALIBAN to return to power and FINANCE the insurgency in Iraq.

- The military needs another 20,000 troops in Afghanistan but America's armed forces are stretched so thin that we can't accomodate that number. Poland has offered 900 troops - but, as we all know, Polish people can't fight.
In fact, a Polish soldier pulls the pin out of a grenade and THROWS THE PIN at the enemy. Hitler conquered Poland by marching troops in who had no bullets in their guns BTW.


IRAQ...

We all know IRAQ is a QUAGMIRE - an unfocused mess where the insurgency is just as destructive now as it was years ago. America defeated Nazi Germany and Japan but, we are now going into year 4 of "the War on terror".

Isn't it obvious IRAQ is America's next VIETNAM?

A LOST WAR !?!

BTW - To all these retarded rednecks and right-wing warhawk christians - living below the poverty line especially - who might claim

IF AMERICA LOSES, ITS BECAUSE OF THE LIBERALS/LEFT ....

Keep in mind that due to the absense of Checks and Balances in the government right now...no matter how many Americans detract from the war and call out for impeachment of Bush, the Bush administration continues to do whatever it wants with little or no regard for LEFTIST detractors.

We hoop and hooler but, they don't listen - or at least - aren't listening till election day.
The failing War on Terror is not going to be lost like Nixon lost his power in Vietnam due to war detractors and Watergate...

The Bush Administration and the radical rights are fighting and LOSING this war WITHOUT US.

The facts I presented can be checked at the MCLAUGLIN GROUP's website

Answer 1

Why be surprised? Bush has failed at everything he ever tried.

Answer 2

1) Bush isn't stupid. That's just an act. He isn't smart enough for the job he has, but he isn't stupid.
2) We are not at war against Iraq and we weren't at war against Afghanistan. We are fighting terrorists and oppressive governments in both places. It is very similar to the stuation in the 1960's in Vietnam, however in both countries we have ousted the governments we were trying to get rid of. But the world is no safer than it was before, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Al Quada and Hamas are still operating, terrorist attacks are still happening and the US is still holding hands with the Sauds.
Your last question sums it up from the negative point of view, but I'd like to put it in the positive and see if it's any easier to answer: What is a win in this war? What is actually the accomplishment of the mission? Does anyone know what it is that we are really trying to do?

Answer 3

Afghanistan is rugged territory, not much grows there and from 1989-1995, no one governed this area and it didn't seem to matter much to anyone.

Afghanistan relies on opium production as its major export. If it had a reasonable alternative, then they'd change their export balance. That's what NATO is striving for at the moment, is to industrialize an agrarian state. That could take a century.

Afghanistan supplied 90%+ of the world's opium BEFORE the US invasion, so, how is that a failure of the US, they reverted to their best skill set and ability, not great for everyone else, but if the USERS stopped needing heroin, the opium issue would go away, not the US military's fault.

The Taliban is financing the insurgency in Iraq? Where's your PROOF? How about the Iranian support of Shi'ite militia, who are greater in number and organization and have an axe to grind in Iraq after 30 years of Sunni rule? They're not the problem? NO!

Afghanistan's military defense is now NATO's deal, and NATO nations are abandoning Karzai, not the US. NATO has to step up and take their responsibility, and stop blaming the US for their failure to stop the Taliban or the opium trade.

We ceded military and political control to a democratically elected government who isn't too pro-US but democratic nonetheless. Who'd we cede Vietnam to? COMMUNISTS! So I think we're doing a bit better here, and in record time (our first engagement in Vietnam was in the 50's for pete's sake, a twenty year odyssey).

Before the last American boot steps out of Iraq, let's withhold the defeatist rah-rah, shall we. This isn't Vietnam, this is internal strife that's inevitable, the minority Sunnis crushed Shi'ites for decades, and now there's a civil conflagration, and it's expected, we aren't the cause of it, they have issues to iron out amongst themselves. Americans aren't killing as much as they're being killed, defending the peaceful Iraqis' right to freedom. That's a better cause than defending Ms. O'Donnell's right to bash God.

Answer 4

Well, we were able to carpet bomb Germany and Japan and defeat both the civilian population and their governments back then. Today the media seems to think that in a war if one person is killed from one side then only one person should be killed from the other side. So instead we left Iraq intact compared to other wars and allowed an insurgency to grow right under our noses. But as we all know we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place and focused our fight on Afghanistan. Anyway, yeah Bush is really stupid for the decisions he has made on our behalf...

Answer 5

I think you are miserable. Your ignorance shocks me. You must never ever had read a book of history. You said "Polish people can't fight. (...) Hitler conquered Poland by marching troops in who had no bullets in their guns". Read about the Polish defense in the WWII. You owe all Poles a real big apology.

And when you will finish reading about polish defense in The World War II, try to find out what you, Americans have done in Dresden in 1945.

You should be ashamed.

Answer 6

Not only Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but quickly losing the USA too. Many more to follow.
The insurgency is probably more destructive than it was years ago.
Bush said that Iraq is not Vietnam. Yeah, we know it's two different countries dude, it is becoming just as deadly.
BTW great question.

Answer 7

No, it's not Bush's stupidity. And who says the war is lost? And who said we lost Vietnam, anyway? I define winning as killing more of the enemy than they kill of us. So far, we've won every war but the Civil ('cause that was us vs. us. Duh.) Iraq and Afghanistan are wins so far. I suppose that after the terrorist nuke goes off in a US city we will lose, but only if we quit right then. And you know that ain't gonna happen. We're gonna keep on doin' the killin' 'till the other side quits. They've already lost by my count.

Answer 8

I voted for Bush. Did you see the news in the last few days? He made his point and it made all the other countries mad! Do you agree that the US is the best place to live? If not, you should move to one of the others. Bush was talking good things about most of the others but they all want to call him a tyrant... if you disagree so much, become one of them. Otherwise, get off your azz and become an AMERICAN!

Answer 9

I wouldn't be to hasty to believe that. My best guess is that the Illuminati have everything very well planned out leading right up to world war 3.

Answer 10

Why are liberals so stupid that they will call the war on terrorism "America's next Vietnam." Here is one fact for you:
More Americans died on Sept. 11th than in the ENTIRE war on terrorism.
It should not even be classified as a war, let alone compared with Vietnam, you idiot.

Answer 11

Not to mention that instead of sending qualified experts to manage rebuilding of Iraq, Bush sent unqualified, no experienced neoconservatives to do the rebuilding. So instead of having a priority on rebuilding the people had a priority on imposing political agendas.

And this isn't just talk either, I have proof.