Democrats would have done what differently involving the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?

Answer 1

1. I would have accepted the Taliban's offer on Sept 18 & 19, 2001 (1 week after 911) to hand over B.Laden to a nuetral country for a fair trial. This may have even prevented us going into Afghanistan but that would have depended on talks with the Taliban after they handed over Laden.
(Source pbs.org The Newshour archives for Sept. 18&19th, 2001)

2. I would have listen to the UN when the UN requested we give Iraqi inspectors 6 more months. This way if Iraq didn't comply withthe inspectors after 6 months, we would have had complete international support for an invasion.. resulting in a lot less loss of life and less cost.

Answer 2

In short, a Democratic president would have done the same thing. See, it's not about Democrat or Republican. There are power elites in this world who really own the politicians and the parties. They pit the two against each other to give us the illusion of choice. These criminal elites are the ones we need to accuse and denounce. The President is just a sock puppet, taking orders from the international bankers (who by the way, profit off of every war since World War I).

Answer 3

1) We would have sent in thousands of more US troops into Tora Bora to trap and get/kill Bin Laden before he could escape to Pakistan.

2) We would have let the UN weapons inspectors take all the time that they needed to thoroughly check Iraq for WMDs and give US intelligence time to see if there were any signs of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

3) We would have let Saddam know that if our intelligence and/or UN inspectors finds proof of WMDs and/or Al Qaeda in Iraq we would invade ASAP.

4) If we had found evidence of WMDs or Al Qaeda in Iraq we would plan for an invasion but before we invaded we would have LISTENED to U.S. GENERALS (Not Rumsfeld) and they said we would need at least 300,000 troops for the invasion & occupation of Iraq which we would supplement with a coalition force similar to what Bush Sr. did in Gulf war 1.

5) We would have had a solid plan for the reconstruction of Iraq starting with not allowing any looting and immediately get a new Iraqi army and police force together.

Answer 4

you're factually incorrect. Liberals do no longer sell conflict as a thank you to unencumber oppressed human beings. Liberals adversarial the Iraq conflict because of the fact it became in accordance with a mountain of lies promoted via the Bush neocon cabal, because of the fact it needlessly placed US troops in harm's way and because it became a colossal waste of one million trillion + funds. extra advantageous, this liberal, for one, helps the conflict in Afghanistan because of the fact Afghanistan attacked the U. S. via proxy on 9/11 and all and sundry who assaults the U. S. might desire to be wiped off the face of the earth. so a procedures as i'm worried, Afghanistan total isn't surely worth the existence of one unmarried American and could have been switched over right into a radioactive desert from day one. there is not any oil there besides - only drugs. so a procedures as Republican "conservative recommendations" are worried, no longer something they do correlates to logic - it purely correlates to hypocrisy. So in case you're in seek of for explanation why the neocons are not opposing the wars (different than the glaring one - that all of them started them interior the 1st place and can no longer in any respect admit to the blunders), you may start up with their hypocrisy and lies. i come across your theories on politics to be uniformed at ultimate, yet lots extra possibly deranged.

Answer 5

I would have kept our soldiers at home and trained spies to hunt and kill terrorists instead. The CIA can cross into a border without making an international incident. If US citizens can walk into Alqeda cells without the least bit of effort there's no reason a CIA deep opperative couldn't enter a Terror Cell and clean upwards. Terrorists have no fear of a Military, they're big and loud and not trained to find them amoungst a billion other muslims with simular ideals. Spies don't wear flags or upset insecure dictators. They find the problem and solve it. That would scare any terrorist. Instead of sending hundreds of thousands of Armed servicemen into a country that didn't attack us I would have stationed them at sea ports and airports, ready to take action if they see anything out of place. I would have abotaged North Korea's Neuclear Weapons Program. I would have worked with the UN to make international law intollerant of nations that harbor terrorists. I would have pushed for more than sanctions. I wouldn't have tapped phones or read mails illeagally, I wouldn't have shared US the information of US citizens with corperations. If us rights needed to be suspended I would have declared a state or martial law. I would never have employed a terror chart and I would absolutely not have used to overshadow the failings of my administration. I would have been honest with Americans about the plan to deal with terrorism and my commitment to return America to a place where we feel safe and free. They aren't my enemy.

Answer 6

Clinton's policy was regime change in Iraq, he felt the American people would not support an invasion given Veit Nam, might hurt his legacy,so he passed it on to the next administration to deal with. Same with bin laden, but after 9-ll I think he would have done the same.And the American people would have backed him.

Answer 7

The Democrats would have waited on a NATO size force if they had the power but still would not have attack Iraq: They didn't attack us. they would have sent troops into Afghanistan

Answer 8

Would have stayed the course in Afgan and not decide to leave it to the Afghanistans to catch him.... and never would have even bothered with Iraq.

Answer 9

They would have done the same thing in Iraq, but we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.

Answer 10

stayed out of iraq, focused the manpower and money wasted there on terrorists in afganistan, pakistan and within the USA