At the beginning of the Iraq war we had only committed 10,000 troops to Afghanistan. Shortly after this was reported we doubled the troops to 20,000. Although there seems to be a shortage of reporting in Afghanistan, it's my understanding that only a handful of cities are under control of the government. The rest is controlled by various warlords and a re-emerging Taliban.
Had we committed 150,000 troops and stayed out of Iraq, do you think we could have captured Bin Laden, brought more of the country under government control, and kept the goodwill of the world? Would it have given us even more leverage against Iran?
2007-01-14 03:17:24 · 6 answers · asked by cornholingmidgets2 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No bin laden would have cross a boarder we are not allow to cross that would be that.
You think that only Muslim terrorist is bin laden.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Take a look and you find it isn't all about bin laden.
2007-01-14 03:51:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have resolved the crisis in Iraq, the start of all of this was 9/11, Bush yelled out "war on terrorists", the terrorist would have been captured. No more action required.
As to the leverage against Iran, there has been NO PROOF as to Iran building nuclear weapons, reports are showing no renewed activity in Iran, the U.S. is treating the government of Iran as idiots and the Iranian government is treating the U.S. as a superpower country that's trying to rule the world, Iran has said that the days of rule for Superpowers should not exist in this day and age, he says communication, he's wanted dialogue with U.S., sry it looks more the U.S. wants to start dictating to this country . Did you read the letter President Ahmadinejab wrote to the people of America.
2007-01-14 11:46:25 · answer #2 · answered by whispergently0204 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes we could have captured Osama Bin Laden if we had concentrated all our forces in Afghanistan. He was moving between cities and was nearly caught at Tora Bora but he changed his mind and didn't go there. Now that he's in Pakistan he will never get caught, and Bush isn't even looking for him anyway.
The whole idea is to keep Bin Laden alive, so that Bush can continue his "war on terror". A dead Bin Laden means it is over, and he doesn't want that.
2007-01-14 18:13:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as Bush dose not want to arrest him he would be killed US soldiers.
2007-01-17 06:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by Judge 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you bet. but that's not the real plan
2007-01-17 09:37:20 · answer #5 · answered by Eric the Great *USA* 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he might have been.
2007-01-14 21:29:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋