English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Afghanistan to get OBL SO WHY such a disparity in troop deployments?
Today there are nearly seven times more US military personnel serving in Iraq than in Afghanistan - 140,000 compared with just over 20,000. The United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq war, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. In the past five years, the US has provided a total of just $12.5 billion in economic and military aid to Afghanistan.

2007-01-21 15:47:32 · 12 answers · asked by Paul I 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

It seems thqat no matter how a question is asked on here someone always has to be rude..............

2007-01-21 16:00:39 · update #1

12 answers

i thought we were just using up some old munitions and keeping our military in touch with their jobs. generally we just fight until the public won't stand for it anymore, or until a democrat gets in office.

2007-01-21 15:49:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Afghanistan was very simple, militarily, to overcome. All that was needed there was a pipeline to connect the break-away soviet republics' oil riches to a warm water port in southern Afghanistan. The pipeline was easy to build and secured rather quickly once the Taliban was disposed. Iraq is the real treasure with the world's second largest oil reserves. The US has drafted a Hydrocarbon contract with Iraq securing Iraq's oil for the next 30 years tax-free. Guess who gets the oil? Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and BP and Shell. Wouldn't you know? Bush billionaires will be trillionaires.
Check out the Independent in the UK for more information.

2007-01-21 16:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by fenx 5 · 0 1

Looks like I'm the only one who thinks there are WMDs - either buried someplace in Iraq or taken out of the country. I base my thinking on the facts that it was not just the intelligence of the U.S. that told us of their existence, we know they were used on the Kurds, Saddam never submitted proof to the UN that he destroyed them, and would not allow inspectors in for 4 years. I think a lot happened during those 4 years that cannot be talked about at this time.

Just my opinion.

2007-01-21 16:23:34 · answer #3 · answered by TheHumbleOne 7 · 1 0

Bush bases his decisions on primarily his emotions. Emotion is an affective, sentimental psychological function. Bush personally resented and feared Saddam, and was more interested in seeing to it that Saddam couldn't order a hit on Bush, than he cared about the United States and the lives of Americans except those closest to him.

PRESIDENT BUSH:...my Chief of Staff...walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

I made up my mind that Hussein needs to go. The policy of my government is that he goes.-- G. W. Bush
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/06_Whocares.html

2007-01-21 17:12:29 · answer #4 · answered by orderly_logic 1 · 0 0

1 word - logistics.

Afghanistan has no ports, no significant cargo capacity, little industrialization and infrastructure, and in remote areas, even less.

So any military unit would have to be airlifted in, their equipment, their ammo, their food, water, supplies, medicine, etc would have to be airlifted in. The further they go from the built-up areas, the longer the supply line.

You can only supply so many soldiers in the field with airlift. That's why the disparity.

Iraq has significant port capability.

And Iraq is significantly bigger and more populous than Afghanistan.

2007-01-21 16:00:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Just to pi-ss people off like you...
Afghanistan was so called under control....Iraq wasn't at the time....but because of the left and their cheering for the underdog....Afghanistan is seeing the same type of bombings they never had before....thanks to all those that supposedly support the troops.....a s s h o l e s.

2007-01-21 15:57:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Oil? Seriously, Bush went into Iraq as a war of choice. The Iraqis would be easy push-overs, We would install a new puppet-regime that has our energy interests at heart and people would throw flowers at us. Now, after losing so much, he is doubling down at the blackjack table trying to recoup his losses.

2007-01-21 15:54:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Afghanistan is somewhat under control.... Unlike Iraq. That is why there are more troops in Iraq!

2007-01-21 15:52:35 · answer #8 · answered by PENIS ENVY 1 · 1 1

Oh my goodness, are you seriously putting this scenario on the table "one more time"? It's like being served mashed potatoes 100 days in a row.

2007-01-21 15:52:36 · answer #9 · answered by lindakflowers 6 · 2 1

It is a question that is asked over and over.. and Bush gives no answer. in his little mind, he is convinced they are one and the same and that he is fighting the " war on terror" he is simply trying to make a name for himself with other peoples blood.

2007-01-21 15:52:22 · answer #10 · answered by Debra H 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers